Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Comprehensive Spending Review

Douglas Carswell: What work he has undertaken on Government policy with regard to the 2007 comprehensive spending review.

John Prescott: This is the fifth spending review undertaken by the Government and the second comprehensive one. Since 1997, 2.4 million jobs have been created and the UK economy is enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth for 200 years, which the International Monetary Fund says is a remarkable and enviable record. The present comprehensive spending review is based on an assessment of the long-term challenges facing the UK in the decade from 2007. It will enable us to sustain the momentum of improvements in public services and release the resources needed to meet the challenges of the decade ahead. I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, Cabinet colleagues and others about how to meet the changes.

Douglas Carswell: How does the Deputy Prime Minister think that the next comprehensive spending review can avoid a repeat of the prison places crisis and the tax credit fiasco?

John Prescott: The spending reviews of the past 10 years show the most enviable economic record, as I have just said, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to maintain that. The IMF has endorsed that policy, which has not always been the case with Labour Governments or even Tory Administrations. To that extent, it is a bit much for the hon. Gentleman to talk about what he might do about public expenditure—[ Interruption.] The implication is clear—what they would do rather than how we deal with public expenditure. Ours is a successful record, which we will continue.

Sammy Wilson: The interim report of the comprehensive spending review in July stated that pay settlements across the public sector should be based on the Government's inflation target of 2 per cent. Does that target apply to public quangos and, if so, will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how, in Northern Ireland, the Police Ombudsman and the chief executive of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment and many other public bodies could receive pay increases of nearly 10 times that target?

John Prescott: The comprehensive spending review applies to all public sector payments. I am not up to speed on what exactly has happened in Northern Ireland, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the review will apply to all.

Nicholas Soames: Given the demanding level of future housing that the Deputy Prime Minister has willed on the south-east of England, in the course of his discussions on the comprehensive spending review, what representations has he made to the Chancellor to increase the woefully lacking infrastructure in the south-east?

John Prescott: When the Chancellor makes his statement, he will make clear how much of the resources will be available for infrastructure expenditure. But let me be absolutely clear: houses are needed in the south-east, as people in the region make clear, and we shall provide the necessary infrastructure.

William Hague: Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much money will be set aside in the comprehensive spending review to fund his own new Department? Does he think it right that while 20,000 jobs are being lost from the NHS the Government are having to spend millions setting up a new office for a Minister who has been stripped of all his departmental responsibilities?

John Prescott: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman is not up to speed with the facts. His hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said that 20,000 jobs had been lost in the NHS, but it was made clear by the Secretary of State for Health and, indeed, the Prime Minister not just that the figure is only 900 but that it should be seen against the increase of more than 100,000 jobs in the health service, so the figure was just untrue and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to withdraw that obvious untruth.

Post Office

Peter Bone: What discussions he has had on the Post Office network since May 2006.

John Prescott: I have discussed this important issue with Cabinet colleagues and some postmasters, who lobbied all Members at Parliament on 18 October. The House recognises the important contribution that post offices make to the life of many urban and rural communities, and they will continue play that role in the future. Post offices need to adapt to change, as they are doing, and to offer new services. To support that, the Government have already invested more than £2 billion, and in the coming weeks, once the consultations are concluded, we shall bring forward our strategy.

Peter Bone: Under this Government, thousands of post offices have closed, causing real hardship to the elderly, the most vulnerable in our society, people on low incomes and the disabled. Did the Deputy Prime Minister really come into politics to make the daily lives of those vulnerable groups in our society more difficult?

John Prescott: It is a matter of fact that the Post Office has declined considerably over a long period and thousands of post offices have closed, as the House knows from our many debates on the subject over the past 10 or 15 years. The hon. Gentleman should consider the fact that the Government have invested more than £2 billion in modernising the Post Office, whereas the Conservative Government gave it nothing. We have given almost £800 million to develop rural and urban post offices. We are consulting on the issue, we are well aware of the concerns and we will make a statement to the House. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that about 99 per cent. of people live within one mile of a post office.

Kate Hoey: Will the Deputy Prime Minister use his position as chair of the interdepartmental group on post offices to ensure that his different Departments know that they should give work to the Post Office instead of taking it away? Is not that the real problem—that while we are putting in subsidies, different Departments are not joined up in supporting the Post Office?

John Prescott: I recognise my hon. Friend's point, but I have to say that many people's choice has been— [Interruption.] Well, they have a choice whether to take their money to a particular account or leave it with the Post Office card account, and many people have decided to change, which Departments have to recognise. In reality, it is about the use of public resources, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the committee is actively debating how to secure a proper balance between technological change, available resources and customer choice.

Alan Reid: Does not the Deputy Prime Minister realise that unless Government Departments give work to the Post Office, people will not be able to use post offices? The most important factor is the continuation of the Post Office card account after 2010. The Government must state soon that there will be a Government-supported successor to that account and make it easy for people to transfer—we do not want all the bullying and badgering to persuade people to go to the banks that happened when pension books were taken away. We want a Government-supported successor and an easy means for people to transfer from the Post Office card account to that successor.

John Prescott: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point and I can assure him that these issues are actively being debated in the committees. A statement will be made to the House shortly, so all those questions can be properly answered.

David Drew: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that what we really need is an early statement? What sub-postmasters and mistresses require more than anything is the security of knowing what is being planned for the network. Will my right hon. Friend include in the statement clear guidance on how local communities can play a part in providing greater support for the Post Office, including the role of social enterprise?

John Prescott: Again, I find myself in agreement with much of what my hon. Friend says. The postmasters who came here two weeks ago made it clear that the present system is unsustainable. We are trying to find a proper balance, as I said, and a statement will be made soon.

Matthew Taylor: This is a classic example of the Government's policy not being joined up. The Prime Minister says that he wants to keep post offices open, yet the Department for Work and Pensions has been bullying people to move their benefit claims from post offices to banks. People no longer know whether the Post Office card account will be maintained. Furthermore, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is in her place next to the Deputy Prime Minister, talks about social exclusion, when the sub-post offices most likely to be closed are in the most rural areas. Two sub-post offices in my constituency at Bolingey and Portloe have been closed and the buildings sold because a profit cannot be sustained. In those areas, however, one in four people do not have access to a car and it is pensioners, disabled people and those on benefits, particularly young mothers, who have the greatest need for a post office.

John Prescott: The reality is, as I have already pointed out, that 99 per cent. of people live within a mile of a post office. It is true that the number of post offices has declined, but the Government have put in nearly £800 million to sustain the existing service. If the Liberal solution is to privatise the Post Office, I suggest that that is made clear to the Post Office, but I am not sure that it will view that as a happy solution.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend recognises the important role that post offices, whether urban or rural, play in the community, but does he acknowledge that one of the problems has been Government Departments' strong-arm tactics to get people to give up their Post Office card accounts? We also need a reversal of the BBC decision not to allow the Post Office to supply TV licences. I understand that the DVLA is reviewing its position on whether post offices should be available for car tax.

John Prescott: The Prime Minister made it clear two weeks ago that there has to be a balance in financing the BBC and the Post Office. As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said, those matters are being given serious thought. We hope to make a statement to the House when the questions can be answered.

William Hague: The Trade and Industry Committee report, which was published last week, found a lack of joined-up thinking between Departments. It is seriously concerned about the lack of urgency in the remit of the Cabinet committee on the Post Office that the Deputy Prime Minister chairs. If he hopes to leave our Post Office network a better legacy than the mess that he left in regional government and the strategic transport plan, should not the expected Government statement include a review of their decision to scrap Post Office card accounts?

John Prescott: As has been made clear in exchanges between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Government are considering all such matters, including the Post Office card account. We hope to make a statement to the House shortly, once the conclusions have been finalised.

Homelessness

Mark Pritchard: What steps he has taken to improve co-ordination of the Government's homelessness strategy.

John Prescott: The House will recall our inheritance in 1997, against which we should measure our improvements. Under the Conservative Government, homelessness doubled, housing finance halved, 500,000 homes were repossessed, there were record levels of rough sleeping and 1.2 million homes were in negative equity. Our improvements must be measured against that. The Government's record, which was implemented by the homelessness directorate that was set up in 1999, is: reducing rough sleeping by 73 per cent.; bringing to an end the long-term use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children; reducing new homeless cases to the lowest number for more than 20 years, and doubling housing investment. In March 2005, I set out our strategy for building on those achievements in "Sustainable Communities: Settled Homes; Changing Lives".

Mark Pritchard: Does the Deputy Prime know that Salvation Army research shows that there will be 100,000 rough sleepers on the streets of Britain tonight, too many of whom formerly served in Her Majesty's armed forces and too many spent time in care? Will he consider spending more time on the streets of rural England and this country generally rather than touring the streets of far east Asia? Perhaps there would then be fewer homeless people on the streets of this country.

John Prescott: That is the sort of silly question I expect from the hon. Gentleman. The House can make its judgment but let me pray in aid our record, including the fact that
	"the homelessness directorate's target setting, supported by financial support and advice to local authorities, has helped to bring about significant alleviation of the worst consequences of homelessness"—
	not my views, but those of the Tory Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who is hardly a friend of the Government's.

Ronnie Campbell: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that we should build council houses for homeless people who cannot afford even affordable housing?

John Prescott: We are doubling the amount of investment in social housing.

Julian Brazier: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that this morning's statistics on mortgage lending show that the affordability of housing for ordinary families is at its all-time most difficult?

John Prescott: I do not accept that. I acknowledge that there are difficulties, and that is one of the reasons I provided that the building industry could establish the £60,000 house, giving people a chance to get a foot on the buying ladder. The previous Administration halved the amount of housing investment, and record numbers of people were homeless and sleeping on the streets during their time in office. We have changed that in a remarkable way and we shall continue to build on that.

Andrew Love: The most important part of the homelessness strategy is an increase in the supply of affordable rented accommodation. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give the House today that the welcome increases of recent years will be sustained in future?

John Prescott: As we spelled out in the papers that we produced for the House, we intend to continue with those programmes. When my hon. Friend examines the expenditure in the comprehensive spending review and public expenditure statements, he will realise that we intend to provide the resources to achieve those objectives.

Oliver Heald: The Government's policy on finding homes for key workers is clearly failing, and 90,000 public sector homes are still lying empty. What are the Government going to do to help these vital workers to find somewhere to live? Given that we have this huge problem, why is Lord Falconer—who has a mere five homes already—receiving a grace and favour flat? Is it not time for the Government to help the key workers to find homes, rather than helping themselves to homes?

John Prescott: More homes are being provided for key workers than under the previous Conservative Administration. I have already read out the record of that Administration—for which the hon. Gentleman has a responsibility—under whom the amount of housing investment was halved, more people were living in houses with negative equity, and many people were made homeless. We are quite proud of our record on housing, and we are improving on it.

Ministerial Visits

Derek Wyatt: What the outcomes were of his recent visit to the far east.

John Prescott: As the House may be aware, during my 10-day visit to the far east, I met a number of senior Asian leaders on behalf of the Prime Minister. These included the Prime Ministers of Japan and South Korea, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, the Foreign Secretary Ban Ki-Moon—the United Nations Secretary-General designate—State Councillor Tang, who is the co-chairman of the China taskforce set up by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and Premier Wen of China. The House will be aware that State Councillor Tang is also China's special envoy on North Korea, and I spent three hours with him discussing North Korea and other interests.
	The main outcomes of my visit were: to confirm our support for the United Nations resolution and encourage the resumption of the six-party talks; to support and strengthen the UK's political and economic relationships with these countries; to meet senior members of the new Administration in Japan; to exchange ideas on areas of common interest and concern, including the environment, security and inter-faith issues; and to agree a future programme of work for the UK-China taskforce.

Derek Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about his conversations in China and South Korea about North Korea? Does he feel that China is ready to step up to the plate and take the lead on that matter?

John Prescott: The House will welcome yesterday's statement that the Chinese Government have successfully persuaded North Korea and America to reconvene at the six-party talks. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has made the Opposition's view clear in calling for tougher United Nations sanctions to get North Korea to participate in the talks. However, North Korea has now agreed to do so without the need for that pressure, which we supported. I hope that the discussions that I had in Japan, South Korea and China will help to press home the Government's position, supported by the Opposition, that we support the United Nations resolution and that the six-party talks should begin. We look forward to that happening.

Greg Hands: During the Deputy Prime Minister's visit, what impression did he get of Chinese attitudes towards the North Korean President Kim Il Sung?

John Prescott: Without disclosing any confidential discussions that I had, which I have conveyed to the Prime Minister, I think that it is public knowledge that the Chinese were not happy with the announcement that was made, of which they had very little notice. The hon. Gentleman must accept, however, that China played a major part in doing what the whole international community wanted—namely, bringing pressure to bear to get North Korea to the table so that the six-party talks could continue. The whole House should welcome that— [ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber.

Neil Turner: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the proposed major Chinese investment in the borough of Wigan. Did he discuss this matter with representatives of the Chinese Government during his visit? Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that there are no blockages at the UK end to this important investment in Wigan?

John Prescott: My hon. Friend knows that I take every opportunity to press the case for British investment in China and, indeed, for Chinese investment in the United Kingdom. There was a great deal of discussion about how we can improve that. Indeed, the subject is one of the major items for the China taskforce, which I chair with State Councillor Tang on behalf of the two Prime Ministers.

Iris Robinson: As the Government intend to tax the public to the hilt in their efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, will the Deputy Prime Minister make a commitment to reduce foreign travel to support the green agenda?

John Prescott: If the hon. Lady knew anything about these global problems, which require global solutions, she would know that Members of Parliament have to travel to different countries to negotiate the agreements involved. The Government have a scheme under which all such travel will be taken into account, credited and used as part of the carbon agreements.

Equal Pay

Natascha Engel: What discussions he has held with stakeholders on equal pay across the public sector; and if he will make a statement.

John Prescott: Hon. Members will be aware that the Office for National Statistics announced last week that the pay gap between men and women is at its lowest recorded level. I am sure that the whole House will welcome that. However, there remains more to do. The Government have issued a clear action plan to respond to the women and work commission. I have chaired meetings with Baroness Prosser and the general secretary of the TUC to discuss how we can continue to narrow the pay gap. I intend to continue to meet interested parties, including the CBI, to discuss how we can continue to narrow the gap further.

Natascha Engel: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. What are the Government doing to help public sector employers to break down the barriers faced by women in the labour market and narrow the pay gap?

John Prescott: It is important to engage employers on the matter. We have started to build up a set of exemplary employers from both the public and private sectors that have good practice initiatives to improve the situation. We are building on an initiative fund, which stands at approximately £500,000 at the moment, to increase the number of senior, quality jobs that are available part time. We are setting up funding for a network of equality representatives and trade union reps to champion equality in the workplace.

John Bercow: Why is the gender pay gap among part-time workers bigger in the public sector than it is in the private sector?

John Prescott: That probably reflects the negotiation techniques that have been used in the past—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is aware of them. The recent Cadman judgment stated that pay related to years of service had definitely worked against women. The Government are having to take that into account.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Mental Health

Madeleine Moon: What Government policy is on the support employers should offer to those with severe mental health problems.

Hilary Armstrong: The Government believe that people with severe mental health problems have the same rights as other citizens and should be supported to manage or overcome their problems, especially if their needs are complex. We all have a role to play in challenging stigma. However, as is recognised in the social exclusion action plan, employers have a particular role and obligation to ensure that they do not discriminate, that our workplaces encourage mental well-being, and that employees are offered support if problems occur.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. With one in three people who visit a general practitioner's surgery having a mental health problem, with one in five people likely to experience anxiety or depression during their lifetime, and with 40 per cent. of those on incapacity benefit having a mental health problem, employers play a critical role in ensuring that people can build stability into their lives and return to constructive employment. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming BT's initiatives and work to ensure that its staff have support if they experience mental health problems?

Hilary Armstrong: I support the important points that my hon. Friend has outlined relating to people's well-being at work. The pathways to work pilots, with their strong local partnerships between Jobcentre Plus and the national health service, have been acknowledged internationally as the best way of helping people on incapacity benefit to get back into work quickly. The programme has been the most successful to date in getting people with mental health problems back into work. I hope that my hon. Friend and other colleagues will work locally to ensure that more of that happens in their areas —[ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the House to come to order?

Danny Alexander: The Minister referred to the pathways to work pilots, but is she aware that the evaluation suggests that they have not been especially successful for people whose first reason for claiming benefit is their mental health? Will she thus consider what the Government's response should be to the proposal of Lord Layard to increase substantially investment in cognitive behavioural therapy so that measures to help people with mental health problems back into work can be more effective?

Hilary Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is right: it is more difficult to get people with mental health problems back into work than any other single group. That is why we are implementing pathways to work, which has been more successful than any other programme. It is also why we have been working with Richard Layard and others on the increased use of talking therapies so that we can ensure that more people do not get on to incapacity benefit. That strand of work is important. I am working with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments to ensure that we make the best of that and build capacity. A significant amount of work has already been done through the Department of Health to fulfil our manifesto commitment on the issue.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Jeffrey M Donaldson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 November.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in condemning the incendiary bomb attacks in Belfast last night. The republican terrorists behind those attacks have nothing to offer the people of Northern Ireland. As the Democratic Unionist party continues to consult widely on the St. Andrews agreement, will the Prime Minister once and for all confirm that the Government will not grant an amnesty to IRA terrorists who are on the run, and will not reintroduce the deeply offensive legislation that was previously brought before the House or seek to achieve the same objective by any other means?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already made it clear to the House that there will be no amnesty for on-the-runs, and that we have no intention of bringing back legislation on the issue. On the first point that the hon. Gentleman makes, I entirely share his condemnation of the attacks last night. He is also right to point out why they are taking place—because people do not want the prospect of agreement that was offered at St. Andrews. They are trying to disrupt it and change the stated desire of people in Northern Ireland to live together in peace. The best response to such acts of violence is to make sure that the St. Andrews agreement is fully implemented, that we get the institutions back up and running, and that the peace process thrives and moves Northern Ireland forward. If we can do so, that is the best response to those who use violence.

Eddie McGrady: Apropos the St. Andrews agreement, does the Prime Minister agree that secret side deals can frustrate even the most creditable agreement? As the parties have very many difficult points further to negotiate, will he lift the veil, so to speak, from these side deals so that we have a better relationship, as was said before, and no further side deals can be done? For example, does he agree that the question of education by academic selection or otherwise in Northern Ireland is not for one party alone, but for the entire community?

Tony Blair: The most important thing is that the decisions on matters such as education are taken by the directly elected politicians in Northern Ireland. That is one reason why we want the St. Andrews agreement to succeed. The agreement is very open about what is necessary. We need to resolve the issues in relation to policing, but there is a tremendous desire right across the political parties in Northern Ireland for the St. Andrews agreement to be implemented. The basic deal that has been at the heart of it since the outset has been peace in return for exclusively democratic means being used in order to further people's political objectives. If everyone can get behind that essential position in Northern Ireland, the St. Andrews agreement will be implemented and the peace process will move forward.

David Cameron: Today hundreds of health workers will be lobbying Parliament worried about deficits, cuts and low morale in our health service. The Government's chief medical officer— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the right hon. Gentleman speak.

David Cameron: Members do not like hearing about Labour cuts in our NHS. The Government's chief medical officer has said that evidence
	"from within the NHS...tells a consistent story for public health of poor morale, declining numbers, inadequate recruitment and budgets being raided to solve financial deficits."
	Was the chief medical officer speaking for the Government?

Tony Blair: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what is actually happening within the national health service. There are 400,000 fewer people on waiting lists than there were in 1997, waiting times for cataracts and heart operations are down, people now get their cancer treatment on time, and there are 300,000 more staff in the NHS. If he wants the best evidence of improvement in the NHS, someone said this morning:
	"if you were to say to me is the NHS better now than it was in 1997, I think there have been improvements".
	Who was that? The shadow health spokesman.

David Cameron: What about the chief medical officer, who advises the Government? As ever, the Prime Minister never answers the question. Let us hear from someone else in the NHS. The chairman of the British Medical Association says:
	"This year has seen vitally needed healthcare professionals losing their jobs."
	He says that he is "dismayed" by what he calls
	"the incoherence of current government policies and the damage they have caused to the NHS".
	Did the Prime Minister ever think that, after nine years of Labour Government, morale would be so low in the NHS?

Tony Blair: The comprehensive report on the health service was published by the Healthcare Commission just a few days ago. This is what it says:
	"There are real improvements to applaud and celebrate."
	Patients are seeing real improvements to health care services in England and Wales. They are waiting less time for treatments. There are now more doctors, more nurses and more health care professionals. Of course changes are taking place in the NHS—and rightly, because more cases are being dealt with as day cases, new technology is shortening waiting times, specialist care is being developed, and more is being done in primary care settings now. All that is part of necessary change. The Conservative party, having first opposed all the investment in the NHS, now apparently also opposes reform. The only way in which the NHS will improve is if we keep the money coming in, not cut it back, which is his policy, and make sure that we make the reforms to get value for money.

David Cameron: The health service professionals are not here protesting about our policies; they are protesting about his cuts. If the Prime Minister will not listen to people within the health service, will he listen to his own health guru, Sir Derek Wanless? Derek Wanless told the Chancellor that the money could have been better spent. We now have an account of how the conversation went. Sir Derek said to the Chancellor that the Government's policies since 1997 had made the NHS worse. There was then
	"an uncomfortable silence... Brown was no longer interested in the conversation."
	Does that sound at all familiar to the Prime Minister?

Tony Blair: There is one issue: whether the NHS has got better since 1997 as a result of the investment and reform. Now, even the right hon. Gentleman's own shadow health spokesman admits that it has. It has got better because we got the largest ever hospital building programme under way. It has got better because there are more staff in the NHS. It has got better because the very targets that he wants to scrap are resulting in reduced waiting times and reduced waiting lists. Yes, it is true that there are real difficulties in the NHS—of course there are. There are bound to be when we undergo a process of change. The right hon. Gentleman says that staff are protesting about our policy, not his, but that is hardly surprising when we look at what his policy is. [Hon. Members: "Order!"] I was just about to indicate why we would not follow it.

David Cameron: For once, the Prime Minister admits that there are real difficulties in the NHS. Are not the real failings in the NHS due to bungled contracts, endless reorganisations and top-down targets? Are not those the hallmarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Tony Blair: The reason why we have managed to get waiting times and waiting lists down, why people are being treated for cancer far quicker and why we have 150,000 fewer deaths from heart disease since 1997 is precisely that we have laid down targets for minimum treatment. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he is going to get rid of targets inside the NHS, that will mean that those patients who are currently guaranteed proper waiting times and treatment, or who are guaranteed that when they go to accident and emergency departments, for example, they can be seen quickly, will no longer have those standards. If that is his policy, he is not merely committed to cutting the investment in the health service, but to taking away the very minimum standards that have delivered the improvements that his own health spokesman admits to.

David Cameron: I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to talk about the Chancellor—he cannot even mention his name—but let us just spend a moment on the subject. Let me put the question that I put to him three weeks ago. In January, the Prime Minister said:
	"I'm absolutely happy that Gordon Brown will be my successor."
	Does the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the right hon. Gentleman to get away with that before. I will not labour the point—the Prime Minister is here to talk about the business of the Government.  [Interruption.] Order. I am giving a ruling on an important point. Questions should be about the business of the Government. The issue of who will be the next leader of the Labour party is for the Labour party to talk about and decide. [ Interruption. ] Order. I am giving a ruling. Ultimately, that leader may become the Prime Minister, but I am telling the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a matter for the Floor of the House.  [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Gentlemen should not keep interrupting me, or I will suspend the sitting and the Leader of the Opposition will not be able to speak. I am making it clear that it is not a matter for the Prime Minister, who is responsible for Government business.

David Cameron: Are you honestly saying, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot ask the Prime Minister of the country— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have some calm? Of course, anything that I say from the Chair is said honestly, and I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has no right to ask, on the Floor of the House, at Prime Minister's Question Time, who the Prime Minister is supporting for an office within the Labour party.

David Cameron: Perhaps with my last question I can ask the Prime Minister who he would like to see as the next Prime Minister of this country.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will allow that question, as it is in order.

Tony Blair: I was simply going to say—[Hon. Members: "Answer!"] I am about to answer. The Chancellor's record of having delivered the lowest inflation, lowest unemployment, and lowest interest rates in this country's history, and of having managed the strongest growth of any major industrial economy, which, as a result, has delivered record investment in the national health service, is a rather better recommendation than having spent some time advising Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Rooney.  [ Interruption. ] Order. I have called an hon. Member, so we must move on.

Terry Rooney: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Turner and Newall is in liquidation, which means that there is very little money available for compensation for people suffering from mesothelioma. Will he join me in congratulations, as last Thursday it was announced that benefits previously paid will not have to be deducted from compensation, following the campaign that I conducted with Amicus? Will he confirm that that could only happen under a Labour Government?

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend has done in campaigning on the issue, to the Amicus union, and to all the others who have taken up the cause of that particular group of employees. As a result of that successful campaign, about 4,000 people will each receive about £6,000 in compensation. That, along with all the money paid out in miners' compensation, is an indication of the profound difference in values that the Labour Government bring to the government of this country.

Menzies Campbell: Last night, the Foreign Secretary declined to commit the Government to an inquiry into Iraq, but later the Defence Secretary said that there would be such an inquiry. Which is it?

Tony Blair: The Foreign Secretary stated the position very clearly in yesterday's debate. We certainly do not rule out such an inquiry, and our motion stated that lessons must, of course, be learned, which is always important, but this is not the time for such decisions. Had that motion gone through last night, it would have sent a signal that would have dismayed our coalition allies and the Iraqi Government and heartened all those who are fighting us in Iraq. That is why we opposed the motion and why it is important that we stand up and fight those in Iraq who are trying to prevent the democratic process from taking root.

Menzies Campbell: With regard to an inquiry, is it not now time for a British strategy based on British priorities, and not one that depends upon the outcome of the American elections? And should that strategy not be phased withdrawal sooner rather than later?

Tony Blair: Let me explain something to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. British troops have been in Iraq for three and a half years with a United Nations resolution. When British forces are trying to help those who want democracy to function in Iraq, and when American forces are trying to make sure that that democratic process is secured, they are not simply acting on behalf of America or Britain; they are acting in accordance with a United Nations resolution and with the full support of the Iraqi Government. The trouble with Liberal Democrat Members is that they want to pray the United Nations in aid when it suits them, but when it does not suit them, they ignore it.

Clive Betts: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that last Thursday marked the 20th anniversary of bus deregulation outside London. He may not be aware that in south Yorkshire for every three people who rode on a bus in 1986, there is now one passenger and two empty seats. Will he accept that bus deregulation for most areas has been a failed Thatcherite experiment? Will he back the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport not to turn the clock back to 1986, but to give real powers to passenger transport authorities to ensure that our constituents outside London have the same access to decent public transport as is currently available to people in the capital?

Tony Blair: I fully understand why the Secretary of State for Transport has said that, and I fully support it. My hon. Friend has made his point in relation to Sheffield, and I have heard it in many different parts of the country. In London, where there has been a tougher system of regulation, some of the same problems have not appeared. Without in any sense turning the clock back, it is entirely right to look at the issue again.

Andrew Murrison: What requests for Warrior armoured vehicles have been received from commanders in Afghanistan to help make good the currently inadequate protection available to our troops?

Tony Blair: I think that the Defence Secretary has just indicated that there have not been any such requests. In any event, if there were such requests, or indeed requests for any type of equipment whether for Afghanistan or elsewhere, it would be a duty to meet those requests. The work that we are doing in Afghanistan is extremely important, and, yes, it has proved to be very tough in the south of Afghanistan. When our forces begin operating in an area such as Helmand, they adjust their tactics and strategy, which is perfectly natural. They may well ask for more forces, troops or whatever they think necessary to accomplish the mission, which is entirely natural. What is happening down in the south is a remarkable tribute to what British troops are doing. It is absolutely vital to support the democratic process in Afghanistan. Both in Iraq and Afghanistan, let us be clear that the very people who are disrupting the democratic process are the same people whom we are fighting world wide in this battle against terrorism, so we should support our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq in taking them on.

Helen Jones: Warrington borough council has just said that it is minded to approve plans for the Omega development, which is the largest industrial development site in the north-west, but it cannot make the final decision because the Government office for the north-west has issued an article 14 direction. In view of the strategic importance of the site, will my right hon. Friend take a personal interest in ensuring that the planning process is completed as soon as possible? Will he also assure me that Warrington will get the investment in education and skills to enable local people, particularly those in the most deprived areas, to take advantage of the 12,000 highly skilled jobs that will be created by the development?

Tony Blair: I know something about the project, and I am very happy to follow its progress, because it is an extremely big development that involves a lot of potential jobs in the area. As my hon. Friend will know, Warrington Collegiate, for example, has a major £27 million project. In her constituency, there is about £1,000 a year per pupil in extra funding. We want to keep that funding going. It is important that the Government's position in respect of education and health remain that we do nothing that interrupts the flow of investment that is delivering real results on the ground.

Lembit �pik: I sincerely thank the Prime Minister for his considerable support for the Motor Neurone Disease Association and its quest to cure that debilitating, and sadly invariably fatal, disease. Is he aware of the continuing negotiations with the Department of Health on matched funding towards our 15 million research target? Will he join me in inviting colleagues to spend a few minutes at the launch of the MNDA's research foundation in Strangers Dining Room today between 4 o'clock and 6 o'clock to advance our vision of a world free of MND?

Tony Blair: I look forward to meeting the chief executive of the MNDA foundation shortly. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), will attend the reception, and I hope that as many other hon. Members attend as possible. We are not yet at the stage of being able to respond to specific proposals from the foundation, but we will do so when we get them.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he is doing on behalf of the foundation. MND is a very serious condition. The people who campaign on it are often incredibly brave and committed people who, unfortunately, know that they will die as a result of having the disease, and we would like to support them in any way we can.

Jeff Ennis: Does the Prime Minister recall the Bill that I introduced last year, the Age of Sale of Tobacco Bill, which proposed to raise the age for the sale of tobacco from 16 to 18 to bring it into line with alcohol? Is he aware of the recent report by the Government's advisory council on the misuse of drugs, which fully backs my Bill? Does he agree that the time is right to introduce this measure in the next Queen's Speech?

Tony Blair: We will strongly consider what my hon. Friend says. There was virtually unanimous support for raising the age for the sale of tobacco to 18 from health groups, retailers, the tobacco industry, parents, schools and young people. We hope shortly to put measures before Parliament to bring that into force, and we are looking carefully at my hon. Friend's proposals.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: When the Prime Minister promoted the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) to be Secretary of State for Europe, and then demoted him hours later to Minister of State, did he anticipate that his Foreign Secretary would have to answer all questions on Europe at Foreign Office questions yesterday? Does he have any other odd job in mind for the right hon. Gentleman?

Tony Blair: What my right hon. Friend is doing on behalf of this country in Europe is absolutely excellent. For example, we are able as a result to negotiate difficult matters on behalf of this country in the European Union. That, I may say, is a rather better position than that of the hon. Gentleman's party, which is to renegotiate the terms of our membership of the European Union and to separate itself out even from other conservative parties in Europe.

Gordon Banks: While it is vital that the UK play its role in reducing domestic carbon emissions to fight global warming, does my right hon. Friend agree that the real prize lies with an international solution? Can he tell the House what he is doing to encourage greater commitment from our international partners?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that although it is important that we exercise leadership here in relation to climate change, the solution to this, given that Britain accounts for some 2 per cent. of worldwide emissions, must lie at an international level. That is why in the European Union we are working with partners to extend the European trading system, and why, in the G8 plus 5 dialogue that was started at Gleneagles last year and which includes not only G8 members but India, Brazil and China, we are trying to secure a framework agreement whereby, when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012, we will have a binding set of commitments on behalf of the international community. That will send the right signal not only to countries but to business and industry to invest. In the end, that is the only way in which we will tackle and defeat climate change.

Peter Luff: In his letter to me about the decision to single out chaplaincy for dramatic cuts in Worcestershire's hospitals, the Prime Minister rightly underlined the NHS's commitment to providing holistic care. He said
	Patients' religious and spiritual needs have to be addressed as part of an overall care package.
	Does he realise that the cuts are not compatible with that principle, and that a dangerous precedent is being set which other trusts under financial pressure will have to follow?

Tony Blair: I do of course recall the correspondence, and I have corresponded with the priest who has been leading the campaign. I entirely understand the concerns that people have, but I think that such decisions must be taken at local level.
	As the hon. Gentleman will know, over the past few years there has been a major expansion in the number of people working in the national health service in Worcestershire. Nevertheless, when trusts balance their books and make changes for the future, they must also make those decisions. I hope that they make them sensitively, recognising the tremendous pastoral care that is given and its value to local patients; but I do not think it would be right for me to interfere directly in that process.

Jamie Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree with meand with trade unions, business leaders, the people of Copeland and nuclear industry analyststhat a policy of nuclear generation as a last resort is really a policy of no nuclear generation at all?

Tony Blair: I know that, for obvious reasons, my hon. Friend has a specific interest in this issue. If we do not make the decisions on nuclear power now, both our energy security and our effort to defeat climate change may be put at risk. The reason is simple: over the next 10 or 15 years, we will move from self-sufficiency in oil and gas to importing 80 or 90 per cent. of it. We will lose the existing nuclear power stations. We have already done an immense amount in terms of energy efficiency, renewables and so on, but without the component of nuclear power it is hard for me, at least, to see how we can both reduce carbon dioxide emissions and ensure that we are not dependent on foreign imports of oil and gas in the future.

Robert Smith: This week the Select Committee on Trade and Industry made it clear that if the Government are to achieve their goal of social and financial inclusion, they will have to maintain the post office network at a level above that which is commercially viable for the Post Office. Does the Prime Minister accept the Committee's recommendation that, in principle, the social network payment must continue beyond 2008?

Tony Blair: What I do accept is that there is a role for public subsidy. Indeed, I believe that over the past few years we have put some 2 billion of subsidy into the post office network, precisely because we recognise that it has a social as well as a commercial purpose. Now we are thinking about how we can sustain that purpose. The troubleas the hon. Gentleman will knowis this. I met the sub-postmasters, or their representatives, last week. They are people doing an excellent job, often in very difficult circumstances, and providing a tremendous local service. However, we must ensure that that service is viable for the long term. We can support it, but it will still have to be viablesufficiently viable, in fact, for people to volunteer to run the post offices.
	We will make an announcement in response to the sub-postmasters' campaign shortly. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the network has a social purpose, but obviously it must be limited by the extent of the funds available to us to subsidise it. We should be considering whether post offices can provide other services that give them a different and more modern rationale.

Alison Seabeck: Plymouth's excellence cluster has cut fixed-term exclusions by three quarters in secondary schools and by almost 90 per cent. in primary schools in just one year, thus breaking cycles of disruptive behaviour. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lessons learned from schemes of that kind, which tackle unacceptable behaviour head-on, should be applied more widely?

Tony Blair: I certainly agree that the excellence cluster in Plymouth has worked very well. Similar things are happening in other parts of the country. In London, for example, as a result of targeted investment in education and action through the excellence in cities programmes, whereas in many boroughs 25 per cent. of kids or fewer would obtain good GCSEs, the figure is now no lower than 40 per cent. in any borough. In places such as Plymouth, results have improved dramatically over the past few years. I think that we should sometimes pay tribute not just to teachers and other school staff, but to the work that pupils and parents are doing throughout the country in giving us the best school results that we have ever had.

Paul Beresford: I hope the Prime Minister is aware that, as a result of ongoing co-operation between Conservative Members and Ministersparticularly in the Home Officethere has been considerable strengthening of the legislation dealing with paedophiles. Sadly, just as that is happening, the Met police, who have a tight budget, are about to cut large numbers of the men and women who work in child protection. May I ask the Prime Minister to talk to his namesake in the Met police and ask him to reconsider, so that children in London and elsewhere can be protected?

Tony Blair: I met some child protection officers in Downing street the other dayalthough they were not from London, but from different parts of the countryand they do a superb job of work. I simply say that the Metropolitan police budget has increased significantly over the past few years. Such decisions are principally for the Met Police Commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated that he is very happy to raise this issue with the Met Police Commissioner. I am sure that he will be in touch with the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) about it.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a statement to the House about ministerial statements. A ministerial statement is an important aspect of Government's accountability to Parliament, but to be effective the occasion needs to conducted efficiently so that as many Members as possible can contribute with direct questions. Following a recommendation from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in October 2002, the House agreed that, of the hour or so allotted to statements, the opening ministerial statement should last no longer than 10 minutes and that the reply from the official Opposition should be confined to five minutes. My view is that it is appropriate for the Liberal Democrats, or any other party, to be confined to three minutes.  [Interruption.] I knew that I was being generous. The purpose of these restrictions, as the Committee made clear, is to give Back Benchers a fair chance to question Government Ministers on matters of public importance. I would expect Back Benchers to ask one supplementary question each. I am therefore informing the House that these rules will be adhered to in the new Session, so as to give Ministers the opportunity to make full statements to the House and be questioned effectively about them.

Point of Order

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning's edition of  The Sun newspaper carries a report of a threatened crime wave arising from immigration from Bulgaria and Romania. The report appears to be based on a leaked Cabinet Office memo that was given to a reporter from  The Sun. It seems that, once again, the press have access to a document that is not available to this House. Could you use your offices to cause the document to be placed in the Library of the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman has the right to put questions down to the appropriate Minister.

Registration of Off-road Bikes

Barbara Keeley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require off-road bikes to be registered; and for connected purposes.
	This is the third time in the past four weeks that a Member has asked for leave to be given to introduce a Bill related to off-road bikes. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) introduced a Bill to deal with scrambler bikes three weeks ago, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) presented a Bill for the regulation of mini-motos one week ago. Further, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) recently tabled early-day motion 2040. It was signed by 79 Members, and it calls on the Government to ensure that mini-bikes are clearly defined as motor vehicles.
	I agreed some months ago to support the Greater Manchester police authority's Stop off-road motorcycle nuisance campaign, which has been ably supported by a campaign in the  Manchester Evening News. Those campaigns were prompted by the 26,000 complaints about off-road bike nuisance that were received by Greater Manchester police in the 12 months to July of this year.
	The Motor Cycle Industry Association estimates that as many as 300,000 such bikes have been sold since 2001. Yet the existing statutory vehicle registration scheme applies only to those vehicles required to be licensed, and the requirement for licensing a vehicle is that it is to be used on the public highway. That means that bikes introduced into circulation as off-road bikes are not registered and do not have to undergo any meaningful safety evaluation, and that they can be marketed as toys and sold to children, despite the fact that many now reach speeds of up to 60 mph.
	I believe that mandatory registration should be extended to cover motorcycles, motor tricycles and motor quad-bikes that are designed for use off-road. Early-day motion 2852, which I tabled last week, has been signed in its first few days by 52 hon. Members. It notes that off-road bikes are associated with antisocial behaviour, which disrupts communities, and calls for a mandatory and retrospective registration scheme for these bikes.
	During the summer and autumn months, my constituents and those of many other hon. Members were affected badly by noise nuisance and damage to land and property, and were put in physical danger by the reckless, dangerous and illegal use of off-road bikes. Those who live near open land, canal banks, football fields or even local parks can be affected by the relentless noise nuisance generated by off-road bikes ridden across these places. This can cause particular aggravation to the most vulnerable in our society. One Worsley constituent who has very limited eyesight told me he feared to go out of his own gate on many days in summer, in case one of the young people constantly riding off-road bikes on the adjacent field rode into him. Evidence has also been given to Greater Manchester police by the brother of a child with learning difficulties on the autistic spectrum. The child found the constant noise from two off-road bikes ridden near his home so distressing that he could not go out to play in his own garden.
	I have spoken this week to two Worsley constituents who have seen damage done to land and property by off-road bikes during the summer months. Mr. Les Higgins coaches a junior football team in Little Hulton, in my constituency, and on many occasions the team could not continue with their practice or play on the football pitch due to being ridden at by off-road bikes. The bikes, which were often ridden by two or three young people at a time, were ridden at the young football players, with the riders only swerving at the last minute. Mrs. Renee Cavanaugh, who also lives in Little Hulton, has been plagued by the nuisance from off-road bikes being ridden at the rear of her property, sometimes from as early as 8 am on weekends. Damage was also caused to her car when an off-road bike ran into it. Those riding such bikes illegally in this way are uninsured, so people whose land or vehicles are damaged by these riders have no source of redress.
	Sadly, we now have the concept of the hit-and-run off-road biker. A police officer in Greater Manchester was injured when he was knocked off his bike and ridden over by an off-road biker riding in a gang of 20 such bikes on a public footpath. Pedestrians aged from 14 to 77 have also been injured in collisions with off-road bikers, and a 16-year-old cyclist from Greater Manchester died after a collision with an-off-road bike.
	So off-road bikers can cause death and injury to others, but they are also at risk themselves. I am saddened whenever I drive past a particular lamp post in my constituency, which is strewn with floral tributes to the young man aged 18 who died there last year when the off-road bike that he was riding along the pavement hit the lamp post. In Greater Manchester alone, one teenage rider per month dies as a result of riding off-road bikes illegally or dangerously.
	Greater Manchester police believe that preventing the irresponsible use of off-road bikes is difficult because the nature of the bikes enables a speedy getaway, and current legislation is not strong enough to enable police enforcement. There is an inherent problem for the police in trying to catch those misbehaving on these bikes. An untrained teenager is at grave risk of accident or injury if he or she tries to flee at speed from the police on an off-road bike. Chases would also endanger the police and pedestrians.
	Although the police do have some powers under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, Greater Manchester police believe that these powers are cumbersome and ineffective in dealing with the scale of the problem. The powers are also seen as balanced in favour of those who commit antisocial behaviour. To deal with this, the Greater Manchester police authority has set out plans for a registration scheme for off-road bikes analogous to that for licensed road-going vehicles. That will have the following benefits. First, it will reduce the theft of such bikes, as a clear system of ownership will be established. That will also help to deal with the flourishing criminal market in stolen bikes. Secondly, it will improve consumer protection. Bikes will be subject to safety checks and it will also be impossible to market the bikes as toys. Thirdly, it will increase the efficiency of police action through the ability to identify owners.
	Those are the benefits of a mandatory registration scheme, which will help to reduce the danger posed to communities and also help to militate against the antisocial use of off-road bikes.
	I accept and welcome the measures already taken to combat the problem of off-road bike nuisance. The Government's respect taskforce recently published a step-by-step guide for practitioners, and additional finance has been made available for communities affected by the problem.
	I mentioned earlier that Greater Manchester police authority has been running a campaign called Stop off-road motorcycle nuisance. As a result of an intensive crackdown in late spring and early summer, the local police were able to seize 78 bikes, make six arrests, issue 94 fixed penalty notices and issue 233 warnings. That was commendable work by the police and it has made some difference. However, as the testimony from my constituents Mr. Higgins and Mrs Cavanaugh shows, such campaigns by the police have only limited scope for success while the registration of off-road bikes is not mandatory or retrospective.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown through their tabling of questions, ten-minute rule Bills and early-day motions that the need for such a registration scheme exists. In a month in which we have heard so much about the nuisance of off-road bikes, I hope that I have helped to convince the House that it is time we stopped that nuisance by bringing in a mandatory and retrospective registration scheme.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Barbara Keeley, Anne Snelgrove, Chris Bryant, Natascha Engel, Lynda Waltho, Mr. Ian Austin, Jim Dobbin, Mrs. Sharon Hodgson, Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods, Mr. Andy Reed, Sarah McCarthy-Fry and Mrs. Sin C. James.

Registration of Off-road Bikes

Barbara Keeley accordingly presented a Bill to require off-road bikes to be registered; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 November, and to be printed [Bill 239].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Jack Straw relating to:
	(1) Legislative Process;
	(2) Communications Allowance;
	(3) September Sittings;
	(4) Matters Sub Judice;
	(5) Select Committee Evidence;
	(6) European Standing Committees; and
	(7) Short Speeches
	not later than Seven o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.[ Mr. Straw.]

Legislative Process

Jack Straw: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Legislative Process (HC 1097); approves in particular the proposals for the committal of bills to committees with powers to take evidence to become the normal practice for programmed government bills which start in this House; agrees that this be achieved by Standing Orders through the programming process, with such committees having freedom to decide how many evidence sessions should be held; agrees that the notice period for amendments to bills to be selected for debate in standing committee should, subject to the discretion of the Chair, be extended from two days to three days; supports the renaming of the various kinds of standing committee along the lines proposed by the Committee; and endorses the proposals for the gradual development of improved documentation and explanatory processes relating to bills.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss the following motions: Legislative Process (Standing Orders); Legislative Process (Notice for Amendments in Public Bill Committee); Communications Allowance; and September Sittings.
	I notify the House that I have selected the amendment to the motion on September sittings in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Jack Straw: There are nine other motions covering the legislative process, the communications allowance, September sittings and other matters and I will deal with them in that order. As the House has just agreed, it is for the convenience of the House that they should be debated in one block.
	Let me set the scene. The motions before the House have the potential to deliver significant improvements to the business of the Commons and the effectiveness of the legislative process. In so doing, they will help Members to carry out their work and to strengthen their bond, and that of Parliament more generally, with the public, whom we are here to serve.
	It is a commonplace that Parliament is weak or out of touch, but the truth is that the Commons is much more active and influential today than at any time since the second world war. Scrutiny of Government is far more substantial than, for example, when I was a special adviser to the 1970s Labour Government. The establishment of permanent departmental Select Committees by the then Norman St. John-Stevas, when he was Conservative Leader of the House, was an important step forward. I paid tribute to him at the time, and I continue to do so.
	Since 1997, however, we have sought to make further changes with a view both to modernising and strengthening the role of this place: the introduction of Westminster Hall; greater freedom for Select Committees to establish Sub-Committees and joint inquiries; the honouring of Select Committee and Standing Committee chairs by proper remuneration; reduced deadlines for tabling oral questions; answering parliamentary questions when Parliament is in recess; and the Prime Minister's appearance before the Liaison Committee twice a year. Those are just several of the changes.
	Having seen the work of Government for almost four years as a special adviser in the 1970s, and comparing that with my work as a senior Minister for nearly 10 years, the level of scrutiny to which Ministers are now properly subjected is much greater, in all sorts of respects, than it ever was 20 or 30 years ago. As Michael Ryle, a former Commons Clerk, recently noted,
	a simple factual comparison with the 1950s and early 1960s shows that Parliament particularly the House of Commonsplays a more active, independent and influential role in Britain today than at any time for many years. Important reforms are still needed, but the major advances in the past fifty years should not be derided.
	Let me now turn to the main part of our debate, the three motions on the report from the Modernisation Committee on the legislative process, which was published in early September. A key part of my role as Leader of the House is to ensure that our work is understandable to, and open to involvement from, the public. The unanimous proposals in the Committee's report will help to achieve that. I am grateful to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and all the other members of the Modernisation Committee, many of whom are here today, who have conducted the inquiry.
	The central proposal in the package is for improved Committee consideration of Bills. There has long been concern about the ritual nature of Standing Committee proceedings. I can see the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) nodding. All that I can say is that it is a bit less ritual than when I entered the House, when the aim of Opposition Members when they first joined a Standing Committeeand none was more practised than me in that regard, for the 18 years that I spent in that penurywas to speak as long as possible into the small hours, in the mistaken belief that one's constituents or anyone else was noticing. The Government Back-Benchers simply did their correspondence or went outside to make phone calls, to be called back by the Whips. Proceedings gradually ground to halt, which was what everyone was aiming for. Then there was a three-hour guillotine debate, when outrage was expressed by the Opposition, and the Government routinely quoted all the occasions when the Opposition had introduced the guillotine when in government. The guillotine was passed, and the rest of the Bill sailed through without proper scrutiny.
	We now have programming, which is a start, but we recognise that the system still requires improvement. Therefore, when a programmed Bill is being considered upstairs, we propose that it should now be considered in a Committee that has the power to take oral evidence before it begins its line-by-line consideration. The model for that would be the so-called Special Standing Committee system, first introduced in the 1980s but rarely used. When it has been used, it has been regarded as successful, but it has only been used occasionally, and very rarely on contentious Bills. I think that the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Bill, which was introduced when I was Home Secretary, was the first example of a contentious Bill being subject to that procedure. I think that it worked to the advantage of both sides of the House, and it certainly improved the Bill, which I witnessed as the senior Minister.

David Howarth: I very much welcome the development of a wider use of the Special Standing Committee procedure, which will help to focus minds on the purposes of Bills rather than just on their wording. Will the Leader of the House consider an aspect of Government practice that might help that process along? Will he ensure that the regulatory impact assessment for a Billor the impact assessment, as it is going to be calledcontains a comprehensive account of what the Government intend to achieve through a Bill and how they intend to do so? That would help to focus Committee evidence sessions on the right thing.

Jack Straw: I certainly accept the point that if Ministers are not explaining what they hope to achieve by a Bill, they should not be bringing it forward. That is a modest aspiration. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will testify, when colleagues bid for Billsthere are always many more bids than legislative spacethey have to explain why they want them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should be explicit in the regulatory impact assessment, but it should also be spelt out in the explanatory memorandum and in what is said publicly about the Bill, in this place and outside.

John Bercow: In common with the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), I welcome the proposed extension of the Special Standing Committee procedure, as I said in my oral evidence to the Modernisation Committee. However, if that is to become established practice, it would make much more sense for such Committees to be chaired by members of the Speaker's Panel of ChairmenI declare an interest as a newly appointed memberthan by the Chairman of a Select Committee or another member. The analogy is not with the study of a policy issue, but with the study of a proposed piece of legislation, the Chairman of the Committee upon which should be, and should be seen to be, scrupulously impartial, not a participant in the study.

Jack Straw: I know that there is much to be said on both sides on that issue. The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case, but it is ultimately a matter for the House, Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means. It will come as no great surprise to the hon. Gentleman that the Chairman of Ways and Means shares his view. It is for us to follow what the Chair says on that, not to try to lead it.

Greg Knight: Does the Leader of the House support the point my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) makes?

Jack Straw: Well, I am treading on broken glass on this matter. As I said, I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham makes a strong case.
	The benefits of a Special Standing Committee include informing Members better about a Bill; providing an evidential basis for a Bill; and providing for a more consensual approach. If a consensus cannot be achieved, the process will highlight the areas of division, which is an important part of the political dynamic. Some of the worst legislation that I have seen has been the subject of consensusthe Child Support Agency is one example. The process would also engage outside contributors more directly, through written and oral evidence.

William Cash: Does the Leader of the House recogniseI suspect that he will understand where I am coming fromthat there are proposals that could come before one of these Committees in evidence that would suggest that legislation passed in Westminster should override legislation from the European Communities Act 1972, which goes to the heart of the supremacy of this House? Can he give me an assurance, if not a guarantee, that any such evidence could be taken before those Committees? Furthermore, does he agree that the supremacy of this House should override that Act, as and when the House so decides?

Jack Straw: It is good to see the hon. Gentleman. No speech of mine is complete without an intervention by him. He follows me round like a shadow

Jacqui Smith: Like a stalker.

Jack Straw: Indeed. Having left home affairs and foreign affairs I thought that I had escaped the hon. Gentleman, but the answer to his point about the supremacy of this House is contained in the contradiction in his question. He asks me whether I will assert the supremacy of this House over the European Communities Act 1972. That Act is an Act of this House and it is open to the House at any stage to amend or repeal it. If and when we do so, it can be done by Act of this House and we would not necessarily need a referendum. We would have one, but the hon. Gentleman obviously would not. Then we would be outside the treaty of Rome and releasedfrom his point of viewfrom the bondage to which he feels so subject. However, the decision would be for this House. It is not the treaty of Rome that requires that bondage, but an Act of this House, passed in 1972.
	We have to recognise, as the Modernisation Committee has said, that sending the occasional Bill to a Special Standing Committee is different from adopting it as the norm for the Government's whole legislative programme, which is what is proposed here, so several points need to be made. First, it would not be appropriate for all Government Bills. It would not be applied to Bills that are not programmed at all. It would thus not apply to the Finance Bill. Under these Standing Orders, all other Billsexcept in so far as committed to the Floor of the House or, in rare cases, to a Select Committeewould go to a Committee with the power to take evidence. The Committee itself, via its programming Sub-Committee, would decide how many evidence sessions were necessary. The programming Sub-Committee would be free to propose that there should be no evidence sittings, and that is what we would envisage for Bills that have already been through the Lordsthe Modernisation Committee itself envisaged different treatment for such Bills, which will already have had substantial debate. Such a process will often not be necessary for Bills that have received parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny: one evidence sessionor, in some cases, nonewould normally be appropriate.
	We are also mindful of the long lead-in process for Departments in preparing for a Bill and the fact that the new processes are being introducedin parliamentary termswith some speed, only a couple of months after the Modernisation Committee's report. As a transitional measure, we envisage that evidence-taking would only become the norm for Government Bills introduced a little later in the Session, after this Christmas. All parliamentary Sessions are front-loaded in terms of Bills, so for the forthcoming Session, 2006-07, many fewer Bills will be subject to the process than will be the norm thereafter.
	I was in the House when the system of Special Standing Committees was introduced. It was a good idea, but it was not properly bedded down. Proper training was not given to the Clerks, Departments or Chairmen and the system fell into disrepute. It is far betterI know that this is your view, Mr. Speakerfor us to take our time to get the new structure properly established.

Bernard Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have travelled a long way since he was in the Foreign Office.

Jack Straw: I do not understand at all what the hon. Gentleman could mean. I obviously need further and better particulars.

David Heath: Are there any circumstances in which the Leader of the House can envisage it being of benefit for a Committee on Delegated Legislation to have the opportunity to take evidence before coming to a decision? Are there any circumstances in which similar evidential scrutiny might be appropriate for matters taken under royal prerogative, such as treaties?

Jack Straw: On delegated legislation, we did not take evidence on that point, as far as I recall

Theresa May: indicated assent.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. We can look at that issue, but it is a different matter. As for treaties, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Ponsonby rules, which require all draft treaties to be laid before the House before ratification, and for there to be some effective scrutiny, where required. When I was Foreign SecretaryI say that in case the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) thinks that this is a late conversion to the principleI said that I thought that parliamentary scrutiny of treaties could be improved and enhanced. That may be a subject for future consideration.
	As I was saying, it is our policy that, subject to the exceptions that I have set out, for every programmed Government Bill starting in the Commons, we will propose to the Bill Committee that it should, other than in exceptional cases, exercise its powers to take evidence. The Modernisation Committee recommends that Committees should hold at least one evidence session with Ministers and officials. We hope that Committees will follow that recommendation.
	As well as impacting on Ministers and Departments, the new process will affect House services. Committee Office and Public Bill Office staff, including the scrutiny unit, have been considering how to provide additional support, as have  Hansard and other House services. The House's Board of Management has helpfully, and as requested by the Modernisation Committee, placed in the Vote Office an explanatory memorandum on the costs involved.
	The Government are accepting or facilitating a range of reforms proposed by the Committee to promote processesin Standing Committee and at other stagesthat are clearer both for hon. Members and for people outside Parliament. The notice period for amendments at Committee stage is being shortened, and we also propose that the Committees' nomenclature should be updated. The name Standing Committee is often confusing and irrelevant. They are not standing committeesfar from itso we propose that in future they should be called Public Bill Committees, according to the title of the Bill being considered. For example, we would therefore have an Education Bill Committee, or a Local Government Bill Committee.

Robert Smith: Will the Leader of the House clarify the point about notice for amendments? He said that the notice time would be shortened, but I understood that the proposal was to lengthen it. That is a problem for Opposition Members, The Government can give more notice of their amendments, but requiring the same of members of Opposition parties could make it difficult for them to perform their scrutiny role effectively.

Jack Straw: We thought about that in Committee, but the view was taken that there has to be one rule for amendments, whether they are tabled by the Government or the Opposition. I have experience of both sides of the House, and I know that Governments often bring forward amendments at a late stage. The evidence was that it would be for the convenience and benefit of Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House if notice of an amendment were given a day earlier than has been the norm. That will require some alteration in Government behaviour, but it is an important change.
	Moreover, I used to spend many happy hours in opposition writing amendments to one Bill after another. My experience is that the longer the notice period, the better the amendment.

Robert Smith: What does that mean?

Jack Straw: That was the general rule.
	The report also makes a number of observations about other stages in the legislative process. I agree with its call for a
	flexible approach to the time available to each Bill, making more time available where it is needed, less where it is not.
	For example, a Bill might not need a full day's Second Reading debate, but occasionally one might need more than one day. The Government will work through the usual channels to see whether that result could be achieved. However, we do not agree with the report's recommendation that programme motions moved on Second Reading should not contain the Bill's so-called out date from Committee. We think that the House has enough information to make its decision at the time of Second Reading, and in any case there are appropriate mechanisms if the decision needs to be reviewed at a later date.
	Last Wednesday, the Law Commission reported on post-legislative scrutiny, and we will be considering our response in the coming months. I am very grateful to the commission, and envisage that the report would be an appropriate topic for the Modernisation Committee.
	The next motion before us refers to the proposed communications allowance, which is designed to assist with the important task of improving the engagement of the House with the public.

Mark Lazarowicz: Before he moves on to the next motion, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Modernisation Committee's recommendations about communicating information to the public, internet use and so on will also be put into effect if we agree the motions before us today?

Jack Straw: The answer is yes. The requirements of brevity mean that I cannot cover every recommendation. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and deal with some of those topics in his contribution to the debate.
	One of the seminal changes in this place in the last quarter of a century has been the extraordinary increase in constituency demands and expectations. It is worth recounting a story told by Roy Hattersley, who served in this House for a long time. It concerns a man called A. V. Alexander, a long-standing MP for Sheffield. Hattersley says that he
	hardly ever visited his...constituency during or after the war, producing such disgruntlement that his successor, George Darling, was elected on a radical promise of quarterly visits. When he was later appointed PPS to Arthur Bottomley, the constituency wrote to absolve him even of that promise 'in light of his heavy duties'.
	I know of a Labour colleague who entered Parliament exactly when I did, who recalls attending a constituency association general management committee meeting in 1977 or early 1978. The sitting MP expressed outrage when it was suggested that he might appear in the constituency more often. The MP showed the meeting his diary and said, There! I was here nine months agowhat more do you expect?

John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene, on that point?

Jack Straw: Of course.

John Bercow: I had the pleasure of going to the west bank and Gaza with Baroness Williams of Crosby, and she said that when she first entered the House in the early 1960s, she shared an office with a Labour Member from a mining constituency. One day, she saw him depositing in the dustbin a large number of unopened letters from constituents. She reproved him, telling him that the people needed his help. To that, she got the reply, Nay, lass. If it's important, they'll send a telegram.

Jack Straw: I believe that. I once saw a Labour Member emptying his locker, with mail in it, into the bin. I said that it was the best place for it.

David Winnick: That was Lloyd George!

Jack Straw: I have not been here as long as my hon. Friend, who may just remember Lloyd Georgeand I shall not make any jokes about his father.
	In the past, a drawer or locker full of letters represented many weeks of mail. A few years ago the House of Commons Post Office told me that in the 1950s and 1960s, hon. Members received on average 12 to 15 letters a week. Today the average is more than 300, on top of which, of course, there are e-mails, faxes and telephone calls.
	The Puttnam commission in 2005 was right to assert that Parliament had not done enough to meet its communication responsibilities in this rapidly changing world. As it starkly concluded, in the 21st century institutions that do not communicate, fail. In that respect, therefore, Parliament is failing.

Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend is right to say that our constituents' expectations have risen, and the demands that they make of us have increased. However, unless I am mistaken, there is no demand from them to receive glossy brochures through the post that contain 10, 16 or 20 photographs of their MP behaving like a fairy godmother. That is vanity publishing, and it should not be funded out of the public purse.

Jack Straw: That is not the view taken by the various groups that have looked pretty independently at these matters. My hon. Friend has the advantage of representing a seat that for a very long time has drawn its MPs from one party. People may be used to the fact that he is there, but we must keep up with the times. I have represented my constituency for nearly 28 years, but even there people want an annual report. They want not a glossy thing full of photographs of meheaven forfend!but something that describes in some detail what I have been doing. With the best will in the world, even the  Lancashire Telegraphthe world's most important newspaperor the excellent BBC Radio Lancashire do not communicate those details.
	The report entitled Power to the People was published last year by the all-party, Rowntree-funded Power inquiry. It said that MPs
	should be required and resourced to produce annual reports, hold AGMs and make more use of innovative engagement techniques...what is lacking is the existence of formal, resourced and high-profile methods by which all MPs can listen and respond to the concerns of their constituents between elections.
	Of course, the precise method used by Members varies. We are given a good deal of discretion, so we should be accountable for our exercise of it. In my constituency, I have not until now resorted to annual reports, but in concert with the chief executive of the council, the chief constable, the leader of the council and other public officials, I have held a rolling series of residents' meetings, which involve a lot of resources, too. It is relatively easy to do that in my constituency, although it may not be appropriate in somebody else's.
	In addition, I point out to my hon. Friend that when the Committee on Standards and Privileges looked into that matter in respect of the conduct of a Member, it said that it was important that the guidance in the Serjeant at Arms leaflet on the use of stationery should be revised
	as soon as possible to set out, in full, the authoritative text of the existing rules, together with appropriate explanatory material, including relevant case law.
	I am not saying that that recommendation was the provenance of the proposal, but if the motion is passed it will be an opportunity to ensure that there are better ground rules both for what would amount to a communications allowance, and also for the use of prepaid stationery and envelopes.

Jo Swinson: How can the right hon. Gentleman justify a proposal for an additional allowance? Our existing allowance already gives Members a lot of scope to communicate with their constituents. I agree that communication is important, but the proposed allowance could be an additional 6 million of taxpayers' money, and it is being driven not by the inability of current Members to communicate but by failure to enforce the existing postage rules to combat some of the extravagant claims made by a small minority of Members.

Jack Straw: I do not believe for a second that the net cost will be as the hon. Lady describes. As colleagues know, limited funds are already available for some communications work through the incidental expenses provision and the House's stationery and envelope regimes; but extensive use of the IEP for those purposes means squeezing other resources, and the House's prepaid envelope regime was not designed with wide proactive constituency mailings in mind.
	The motions are tabled in my name but, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead knows, they follow extensive discussions on the subject in the Commission and the Members Estimate Committee over some time. I have also kept the Senior Salaries Review Body in touch with what is being proposed. It may provide the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and other Members with some reassurance to know that the motion does not at this stage commit the House to any particular form or level of allowance; nor does it commit the House of Commons Commission to any particular action in respect of the prepaid envelope regime, although I think it is well understood that the arrangements for that regime would take into account any new allowance. That is an important part of the package. However, the motion commits the Members Estimate Committee to working out a scheme for a communications allowance, the rules for ittaking into account the recent report to which I have just referredand a proposed level. It would also indicate what the boundary between political work and parliamentary work should be, and how it should be approached in the context of the existing rules in that area.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point, but is he suggesting that the communication allowance would be additional, and that Members would continue to receive headed stationery and post-paid envelopes? There may be further rules for the regime, but would we still be able to receive free stationery and post-paid envelopes as well as the communications allowance?

Jack Straw: As the right hon. Lady knows, at present there is no limit on prepaid stationery and envelopes. She has been party to many conversations about that, where it has been not implicit but explicit that part of any change, which is in the end a matter for the House, would be a limit on prepaid stationery and envelopes, and I hope that would meet the convenience of the House.

Peter Bone: Would the allowance enable Members to send out a survey, with a prepaid reply, to find out the views of their constituents?

Jack Straw: The detailed rules are to be worked out. The basic rule involves some fine judgments, as we all understand, between what is plainly partisan political workoutwith any provision of taxpayers' money, for which we are the trusteesand expenditure in respect of our parliamentary duties. I cannot think of an occasion where I have sent out a questionnaire qua questionnaire, but there could be circumstances when I might want to do soalthough not out of the blue to seek my constituents' views about this or that issue that has appeared in the newspapers.
	I shall give just one example, which will be familiar to Members on both sides of the House: a controversial planning application. Generally speaking, my view in respect of planning applicationsit is a survival techniqueis to pass the representations on to the council and get out my tin hat. That usually seems the most appropriate way to proceed, but sometimes we have to take a view about such matters. Sometimes the constituents who come to see us may be very vocal but do not necessarily represent the view of the whole locality. If we are to represent all our constituents, which is a fundamental part of our role as Members of Parliament for single-Member constituencies, there could be a case for finding out their views.

Pete Wishart: As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, almost every Committee of the House has looked into the issue of Members' stationery, without finding a real solution. Would it not be better to resolve that problem before we venture down the path of the proposed allowance?

Jack Straw: My judgment is that it is better to work together on the issue in a sensible way rather than to change the current arrangements for envelopes and stationery without dealing with the fact that some Members on both sides of the House will use the allowance to the maximum. I can absolutely guarantee that if the rules are written and the allowance is passed, not every Member will make use of it to the maximum extent, but Members on both sides of the House will use it and some will use it to the maximum extent, and quite right, too. The changes arise from the increasing demand on, and expectations of, Members of Parliament.

Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).

Joan Ruddock: I have been a Member of the House for nearly 20 years. I have 60,000 constituents, with a huge annual turnover, and I no longer flatter myself by thinking that they know what I am doing. I cannot meet them all personally, so this year, for the first time, I sent out a parliamentary reportentirely non-political. It includes many photographsfor example, of me with members of the many ethnic minority communities in my constituency and at many other meeting places. It is a proper communication, not the same as sending something in a prepaid envelope. It is what our constituents expect in this modern age and my report was well received, but I am now deeply concerned about my budget, because I have had other unexpected expenses. We need clarification. We need a ring-fenced budget so that we can do the work that the House and our constituents expect of us.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which relates to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I suspect that the turnover on the electoral roll in his constituency is relatively low, as it is in mine, but in London and other city-centre constituencies it can be very high indeed and, in a sense, it is our democratic duty to make sure that our constituents know what we are doing.
	I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East.

Martin Salter: Reading, West, I hope.

Theresa May: The Member for Reading, East is a Conservative.

David Winnick: It is safer.

Martin Salter: Not for long.
	Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree that it would be an absolute travesty to describe the communications allowance as a fast-track to glossy brochures? Recently published information on expenditure shows that the most active letter writers in the House are my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is in the Chamber, and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)to both of whom I gave notice that I would make this point. Neither of them is known for glossy brochures, but they are for responding to petitions from their constituents. For the hon. Member for Spelthorne, one case involved a major hospital closure and he needed to use the resources available to him to communicate to his constituents the position that he planned to take. If we are to limit the number of House of Commons prepaid envelopes available to individual Members, there must be another form of communications budget to enable the hon. Member for Spelthorne, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and all of us to carry out the job that we were sent here to do, which is to represent the views of our constituents. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. May I say to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire that if she is concerned about probity, so is the whole House, and one of the best ways of ensuring probity is by having ceilings on all allowances? We do not have that now, but the package that I am outlining offers a sensible way forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Weading, West[Hon. Members: Weading?]I am sorry, that was a touch of the Roy Jenkins. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) referred to the activities of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). If, for example, there were a proposal to have a third runway at London airport, he might well want to get in touch with his constituents. In those rather existential circumstances for his constituents, who could blame him, or them?

Christopher Chope: Taking further the example of a controversial planning issue in a constituency, why does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is the responsibility of a Member of Parliament to do an exhaustive survey of opinion at public expense, rather than the responsibility of the planning authority and local councillors? Is not the problem the fact that local councillors have had their powers emasculated in that respect? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's example prove that this is effectively a propaganda allowance, which will add substantially to public costs?

Jack Straw: If I may say so, with all due respect to parliamentary language, the hon. Gentleman's last comment was nonsense. Let us leave aside the matter of the discretion of local authorities and whether it has increased or decreased over the last 50 years. I suspect that, in fact, it has increased on planning matters. Local authorities still have considerable discretion and power. If I wanted to, I could detain the House with details of the longest-running constituency caseit has been going on for seven yearsthat I have ever had to deal with. It involves the planning authority, and although I generally have the highest regard for colleagues in the local authority, on this particular matter, there has been a level of maladministration. It has been my duty to represent a particular family and a wider community [Interruption.] That is not posturing; it is my duty to do so.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many local councillors do not have limits on their postage to communicate with constituents? On such matters as mileage and car allowances, for example, as a result of the artificial cap that we put on ourselves last year, they claim larger sums than we do.

Jack Straw: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point, and it is worth bearing in mind that there is good evidence that other Parliaments around the world, including Commonwealth Parliaments, are more proactive in making provisionmore modest than we are proposing todayto enable their members to communicate better.

Julie Kirkbride: The Leader of the House puts his case with his characteristic charm, but he must be aware that most Members see this communication expenses scheme as just an exercise in save our seats for the Labour party. Given the massive increases that we have already had in our expenses, does he not give any consideration to the fact that many of our constituents would prefer us to be more considerate of taxpayers' money, rather than sending them a communication that they have not asked for, and will probably put straight in the bin?

Jack Straw: If I may say so, the hon. Lady's comment is unworthy of her, because the truth is that Members on both sides of the House use existing allowances at a level that varies a great deal. I do not have the hon. Lady's figures in front of me, but people can fairly say that there have been some increases. I am unapologetically supportive of the increase, because of the corresponding increase in constituency case load. When I entered the House 28 years ago, the total allowance was something like 1,500, which was terrible, because we could not provide a proper service to our constituents. Before any further allowance comes into effect, there will be a further debateif this motion is carriedon a formal motion on any proposal brought forward by the Members Estimate Committee. Now is not the only occasion for the House to consider the matter, but if the process is worked through and the allowance is agreed, we will see hon. Members of all parties making use of the allowancethere will be no particular party profile involvedaccording to their different expectations and the pressures on them.

David Taylor: rose

John Maples: rose

Martin Salter: rose

Jack Straw: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), but then I really must make some progress.

Martin Salter: The Leader of the House will be aware that local councillors, far from being emasculated, actually have more power and more ability to communicate than do elected Members of Parliament. We have all faced controversial post office closuresin fact, we are statutory consultees on the closures in our constituenciesand my right hon. Friend will be aware that under current rules, we cannot write to our constituents to seek their views, as we have to wait until they present us with a protest petition before we can write back. We are not allowed to send anything unsolicited, and we are in breach of the rules if we do.

Jack Straw: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point, and it will be taken into account by the Members Estimate Committee when the rules are drawn up.

John Maples: It would help us considerably if we had some idea of what sort of figure the right hon. Gentleman envisages. Are we talking about 5,000 or 20,000? The total amount of our allowances is a matter of great public concern, and there is a wide disparity in the total amounts spent by different hon. Members. What amount are we talking about?

Jack Straw: It depends also on the size of the cap, which is related. The combination of the two would mean an overall cap, below the total spending of some Members on both sides of the House now. The actual amount is a matter for the Members Estimate Committee and then the House, but the figure provided to me has been about 10,000although that is not the only figure suggested.
	I now want to make some progress on the third issuethat of September sittings. In October 2002 the House voted to endorse
	proposals...for an annual...calendar which would allow honourable Members to plan work in their constituencies more effectively and provide sittings in September balanced by an earlier recess in July.[ Official Report, 29 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 689.]
	We sat in September in 2003 and 2004. In 2005 there was no sitting because of work on the security screen, and in 2006 there was no September sitting, by way of the inertia of the House. In the light of that mixed experience, the motion now before us gives an opportunity to take a further decision, but we are in a different position from that in 2002.
	We have introduced a procedure for dealing with written questions in September, with written ministerial statements, as an added means of holding the Executive to account during the long recess. That procedure has been broadly successful and I also think that there has been a shift in sentiment since 2002 towards regarding September as a valuable period for constituency work. That has certainly been the balance of representations that I have received from both sides of the House.
	The particular arrangements for September questions and statements in 2006 applied, by resolution, for this year only, but we are bringing forward proposals for a more permanent system. On the basis that the House will approve such a system, I am happy to propose the motion today.

David Winnick: If I can catch the Speaker's eye, I hope later to speak to my proposed amendment to the effect that September sittings should continue. When we talk about allowances and all the restI do not necessarily object to themshould we not also bear in mind that the overriding responsibility of a Member of Parliament is to hold the Government to account in the Chamber? Even if one can submit written questions, not sitting for about 11 weeks is unacceptable. That is why I hope that a number of hon. Members will support my amendment.

Jack Straw: I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to put that point to the House. I supported that argument in 2002, but we must take account of our experience since then, which is that the business of the House in September has not been especially substantial. However, it is for the House, not the Government, to decide what applies in future.

Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw: I shall give way briefly, but I am conscious that I have already spoken for 47 minutes and that others wish to contribute.

Joan Ruddock: Since all the modernisationnot enough in my viewhas occurred, the House sits for longer. There is no question of hon. Members not doing their primary duty of scrutinising and passing legislation. I voted in favour of September sittings, but today I intend to vote against them, because they do not make sense. We require of the Leader of the HouseI hope that he will hold an all-party discussion on the mattera proper review of the parliamentary year. If we divided the year differently, took breaks of a different nature at different times and did not sit in July, for the benefit of Scottish Members, who currently cannot see their families and their children during their children's holidays, we could sit in September and reorganise the party conferences. Much work remains to be done, but it does not make sense to have September sittings of the sort that we have had.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the motion and the future work of the Modernisation Committee.

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must make progress on the remaining motions, beginning with that on sub judice.
	The reports from the Procedure Committee, for which we thank the previous Chairman, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and the current Chairman, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), arise from concerns that the House's existing sub judice resolution causes difficulties for coroners' proceedings.
	Although the Committee ruled out changes to the resolution, it proposed several ways in which its implementation might involve a more relaxed attitude to the exercise of the Chair's discretion. The effect should be to mitigate the sort of problems that hon. Members faced in the past. The Committee has also proposed a new Standing Order to give more power to the Chair if the extra latitude is breached.
	The motion on Select Committee evidence responds to a Liaison Committee proposal to facilitate internet publication of written evidence. By approving the report, we will approve a new practice for certain evidence to be ordered to be published rather than ordered to be printed. Such evidence will continue to be covered by the privilege granted to documents ordered to be published by Parliament. The power will allow Committees to place evidence safely on the internet at the beginning of an inquirythat is importantwithout having to decide that it should also be printed at that point. That is especially beneficial to our constituents and the media.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will be pleased to hear that the motion on European Standing Committees would simply allow the present temporary system for the appointment of those Committees to continue. Their appointment on a one-off basis as and when needed, rather than appointing permanent Committees as envisaged under Standing Order No. 119, works well as a temporary measure until any more comprehensive reform of the European scrutiny system is established. The power to appoint committees in that way will expire at the end of the Session and I propose that we roll it over for a further Session.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Leader of the House started his speech by saying that the public should understand our procedures better. He knows that the European Scrutiny Committee meets in private by Standing Order. Although it resolved in the previous Parliament to sit in public, the Government ignored that. Even hon. Members, let alone the press and the public, are excluded from those deliberations. Why does the comprehensive review of our procedures not tackle that? When will the right hon. Gentleman introduce measures for better scrutiny along those lines?

Jack Straw: Now is not the moment to debate why the European Scrutiny Committee has a discretion to sit in private. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have given evidence before it in public. The wider issue is complicated and we are still examining the Modernisation Committee's important recommendations. My right hon. Friends the Chief Whip and the Minister for Europe and I want some changesit is a matter of pinning down those that would work.
	The motion on short speeches makes permanent the temporary powerdue to expire at the end of the Sessionto limit speeches to as little as three minutes at specified times.

John Bercow: Except for the Leader of the House.

Jack Straw: Indeed. The power will allow a relatively large number of Members to speak briefly towards the end of a debate. The hon. Member for Buckingham cannot have it both ways. If I give way to hon. Members, I am bound to speak for longer than I anticipated.
	The power was proposed in a 2004 Procedure Committee report and is additional to the power to impose a basic speaking limit, which is currently at least eight minutes, under Standing Order No. 47.

Robert Smith: rose

Jack Straw: I shall not give way again.
	We are covering important matters today. Taken together, they should make a difference to the workings of the House and the way in which we serve our constituents and the wider public.

Theresa May: I aim to cover the subjects in the order in which they are set out in the various motions, as the Leader of the House did so comprehensively in his speech and in his generous responses to requests to intervene.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's last comment, the point of the proposals is to improve the way in which we debate matters and introduce legislation in the House, not only for Members' convenience and to ensure that the work that they undertake in the House is more effective, but to improve the ability of people outside the House to access our legislative process, participate and understand the processes that we go through.
	We have several tasks apart from holding the Government to account, although that is a crucial job for Members of Parliament. We must also pass legislation and raise and debate issues in the House. Given my previous comments, it will not surprise the Leader of the House to hear that one of the issues that I should like to see covered more comprehensivelyalthough the Modernisation Committee cannot tackle itis the amount of legislation that is introduced. Only the Government can deal with that.
	Paragraph 2.5 of the Law Commission's good recent report on post-legislative scrutiny states:
	The need for post-legislative scrutiny arises in the context of the huge and increasing amount of legislation enacted every year, much of which does not, due to practical constraints, receive the fullest scrutiny during the legislative process.
	That should concern hon. Members. Indeed, the Modernisation Committee referred to the matter in its report, stating that, if more time were available for each measure, it would be possible to subject legislation to better and more careful scrutiny. We want to make good law, not simply pass legislation that is rushed through, without opportunity for proper scrutiny or for Members to contribute.
	I am grateful for the Modernisation Committee's proposal for more flexibility in timing and the amount of time that is granted for debate. However, when we talk about moving to a position whereby Second Reading debates on specific measures may last for two days rather than one, that simply constitutes a return to a former tradition of greater flexibility to ensure that all the hon. Members who wished to contribute to Second Reading of significant Bills could do that. That avoided the position in which many hon. Members could not contribute, which is what happens now.

John Bercow: Surely, in the context of programming, which I regard as necessary but requiring flexibility, the issue should be who determines the flexibility. The otherwise innovative and welcome Modernisation Committee report does not tackle the management of programming. Would not it be better if it were undertaken under the auspices of a business management committee, independent of the Executive, rather than by the Government of the day?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has moved on to the subject of programming, which I was about to address. He has raised it in reference to the possibility of a business management committee, an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) has long supported

John Bercow: He should chair it.

Theresa May: That suggestion has not been received with complete approval in all parts of the House, although my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield does have a fine record as a member of the Chairmen's Panel. I shall be entirely honest with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow): I am not completely convinced of the need for a business management committee.
	I am disappointed that the Government have been unwilling to accept the Modernisation Committee's simple and practical proposal on programming. At the moment, programme motions are put immediately after Second Reading, having been determined in advance in order to be taken at that stage. That means that they have been tabled before the House has had the opportunity to air its views on Second Reading, and before the issues that are likely to be controversial have been identified. It is therefore impossible to programme properly if the motion is taken immediately after Second Reading. We should allow more time, and any programme motion that is taken immediately after Second Reading should be limited in its content, with a further motion following it a couple of days later, after it has been possible to have discussions on the information that came to light during the Second Reading debate. By that point, hon. Members' views on the subjects under discussion will have become clear. I am sorry that the Government have not picked up that point in the Modernisation Committee's report.
	The Modernisation Committee has raised a number of issues that relate to tidying up the way in which the House operates, including ways of making it easier for Members to manage their business and to find out what is happening. The Liberal Democrats made a point earlier about amendments having to be tabled one day earlier than at present. From my experience, I believe that it is not only the Government who would benefit from such a change. It would also make it easier for members of the Committee considering the amendments to take a view on them, which would improve the quality of the debate. It is crucial, however, that the Chairman of the Committee should retain the ability to accept amendments tabled at a later date, albeit in special circumstances.
	The motions leave out two crucial matters that the House needs to consider in relation to improving the legislative process. One is the need for post-legislative scrutinyI mentioned the Law Commission's report earlierwhich is a matter that we need to look at. Any business would find it very strange that we pass laws that people have to abide by, but have no regular process to determine whether they have worked or achieved what they set out to achieve. I accept that Select Committees sometimes consider certain pieces of legislation, but there is no regular, agreed way of ensuring that key legislation always receives such scrutiny.
	In order to provide such post-legislative scrutiny, we need greater clarity from the Government on the whole purpose of the Bill in question. That matter was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). Such clarity of purpose is important but, sadly, has been reduced. This is particularly the case now that more and more business is passed down to be dealt with as secondary rather than primary legislation. Large amounts of legislation are now being passed through secondary legislation, most of which receives no debate at all. Those proposals that are debated are normally debated for only an hour and a half in Committee. The recent exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and the Deputy Leader of the House on the delegated legislation to establish the new strategic health authorities provided a good example of this. That legislation was introduced in June and came into force on 1 July. The strategic health authorities came into being on 1 October. However, the order was debated in the House in the middle of October, after all that had happened. We need to consider not only the volume of secondary legislation but the process by which we handle it, to ensure that we are subjecting it to an appropriate level of scrutiny.

Simon Hughes: I strongly agree with the right hon. Lady's last point. The world outside thinks that it is nonsense that we debate legislation after it has come into effect. Does she agree that both Houses ought to be able to amend secondary legislation, rather than just being presented with it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis?

Theresa May: Yes, having some ability to amend such legislation would be appropriate. If we were to consider the matter of secondary legislation, we could incorporate that suggestion into our debate.
	The proposed changes to Standing Committees are entirely sensible. They will clarify the Committees' role, and enable us to provide much better legislative scrutiny. The ability to take evidence also represents a significant step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham raised the issue of who should chair the Public Bill Committees, as they will be known, assuming that the motion is passed today. I shall now perhaps put my head on the block by saying that, in my view, they will be more akin to the present Standing Committees than to Select Committees, and that it would therefore be appropriate for them to be chaired by a member of the Chairmen's Panel. There could, of course, be issues involved in taking a piece of legislation from its pre-legislative scrutiny through its scrutiny in the House, in relation to the amount of time that a Member would need to spend on the Committee. However, they will essentially be Standing Committees considering legislation, rather than Select Committees, and their chairmanship should be determined on that basis.
	The proposals on the legislative process are good; they will help us to help Members become more effective in the management of business, in the scrutiny of legislation and in ensuring that we have better legislation at the end of the day. However, the House still needs to address the key areas of post-legislative scrutiny and of secondary legislation, and I am disappointed that the proposals on programme motions have not been taken up by the Government.
	Overall, we need to consider the volume of legislation that goes through the House, and to enable hon. Members to have more opportunity to debate the issues that lie behind the legislation. All too often, debates on the issues can be constrained only in a debate on a Bill that the Government introduce. I apologise to the Leader of the House for citing an example that he has heard before, namely that, although we have considered a number of criminal justice Bills that have dealt with antisocial behaviour, we have not had a proper debate in the House on the causes of antisocial behaviour. It would be of benefit to the House and to our holding the Government to account to debate those issues. It would also be of benefit to our constituents if they could see us debating the issues that are crucial to them.
	The communications allowance has already excited considerable interest across the parties in the Chamber today. The present situation needs to be changed. We have seen from the recent publication of the details of Members' allowances that a small number of Members spend a significant amount of taxpayers' money on their postage and stationery. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)who is in his place todaycame top of the list, but my quick calculation tells me that seven Members spent more than 20,000 on stationery and postage.
	The present rules on stationery and postage allowances are, in some senses, confusing. We are told, for example, that
	House stationery should not be used for circulars of any description.
	However,
	Members who wish to send out circulars may purchase...House stationery...at their own expense,
	although, if they do so, they must not use post-paid envelopes. The present rules are therefore sending out confusing messages, and we need to look at this issue.
	We also need to look at a situation that reflects the job of a Member of Parliament today. During the Leader of the House's speech, hon. Members swapped amusing anecdotes across the Floor of the House about the approach of past Members to post received from their constituents. When I first became a Member, I was told that Enoch Powell used to sit in the Library and write responses to all the letters that he received by hand. That action would be inconceivable today due to the volume of correspondence that we receive.

David Taylor: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) described the communications allowance as a save-our-seats allowance for Labour Members, although it would be available to all Members and would improve communications for those of all parties. How does the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) contrast an allowance that would lead to a clear, transparent, on-the-record statement of the sums expended with the activities of the midlands industrial council, for example, which is a shadowy, murky organisation that makes covert payments in the run-up to general elections, but not during the period of a general election, in seats held by Labour MPs

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that our own affairs give us enough with which to concern ourselves.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will return to the rather different matter of the business of the House.

Martin Salter: I welcome the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about the confusion over circular letters. Does she agree that it is completely ridiculous for the definition of a circular to be so narrow that if we receive 20 letters on the same subject, as we often do, we have to produce 20 different replies to fulfil the rules? The right hon. Lady talked about the Members at the top of the postage league, but there is a bigger issue that the media often miss: what is a Member of Parliament doing by drawing 59,000 in salary, but not sending a single letter during the course of a year?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one individual who has not sent a single letter is a Member who has chosen not to take their seat.

Jack Straw: What about Galloway?

Theresa May: The Leader of the House indicates that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) might have been thinking about not a Sinn Fein Member, but a Member who used to sit on the Labour Benches, who perhaps felt that communicating through Big Brother was rather more appropriate than communicating with his constituents through correspondence.
	Let me return to the question of whether we should have a communications allowance and the job of being a Member of Parliament today. Communication with our constituents has changed. They expect to get more information from us and for us to keep them more aware of what we are doing as their Members of Parliament. The ruling on unsolicited mail is confusing and does not reflect the job of a Member of Parliament.
	The Leader of the House cited the example of a planning matter. I was also going to use that example, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who is no longer in the Chamber, would have intervened on me if I had gone down that route. Let me cite a different example: it would have been entirely reasonable for Members of Parliament to have wished to write to all the head teachers in their constituency to get their views on the Education and Inspections Bill. However, such letters technically would have been unsolicited pieces of mail, so they would not have fallen under the categories of mail that we are able to send.
	There is a need to ensure that Members are able to undertake their job as they are expected to in the 21st century. However, there is also a need to ensure that we are good guardians of taxpayers' money, that we are not abusing the system, and that we are not putting in place allowances that will enable Members to do what is not part of their job. The enforcement of the rules will be important.

Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Lady understand that there is all the difference in the world between Members responding adequately to unsolicited requests from constituents for help or our viewssome Members have huge case loads that are not prompted by any effort to recruit work, including those representing inner-city seats, seats with mixed communities and seats with many asylum and immigration casesand unsolicited party circulars that are prompted by not a single issue, but a Member's desire to get re-elected? Such circulars should be out of the system. Parties should fund them if they want to, but the taxpayer certainly should not.

Theresa May: Indeed, it is appropriate for parties, not individual Members, to fund some circulars, although I know that some of the circulars sent round by the Liberal Democrats in my constituency have been part-funded by Members of the European Parliament, which raises an interesting issue. However, some activities undertaken by Members to respond and deal with problems in our constituencies are over and above the job as perceived by the original stationery requirements. Those requirements assumed that Members just responded when someone wrote to them. However, we all now take up wider issues with community groups and so forth, as well as responding to individuals.

Pete Wishart: Does the right hon. Lady not think that hon. Members are deluding themselves if they think that their constituents are waiting by their letter boxes for a glossy circular from ourselves? Is this not a case of panicking about how to deal with the situation, given the difficulties that are being caused to political parties due to funding issues?

Theresa May: I do not pretend that constituents are always waiting eagerly by their letter boxes for a glossy to come through so that they can see the latest photograph of their Member of Parliament. However, hon. Members should have a choice about how to communicate their activities properly to their constituents.

Dawn Butler: rose

Theresa May: May I make a little more progress? As I was going on to sayknowing the hon. Lady's interests, this might have been a point that she wished to raisethere are a variety of ways in which Members may communicate with their constituents these days in addition to glossy newsletters. The use of websites and e-mail is often the best form of communication, especially for reaching the younger generation of voters who will not read circulars, but will access websites and blogs.
	My view on the communications allowance is simple. My preference would be for a single sum with an overall limit that hon. Members would have as their budget. They could then choose how to spend the sum, albeit within certain appropriate rules, such as not allowing commercial or party political correspondence to be funded from taxpayers' money. My worry about the proposal that we are consideringthis was why I asked the Leader of the House a specific questionis that we will find ourselves in a situation in which a variety of resources will be available to Members. A communications allowance that is additional to Members' ability to get a limited amount of stationery and post-paid envelopes is not the right way forward. I would prefer Members to be able to choose how to use a limited single budget. It might be that special dispensation would be needed for Members who experienced something such as the Lockerbie disaster in their constituency. However, in general, we should have a budget to which we have to stick, rather than various allowances on which we can draw, with the risk of abuse by Members.

Bernard Jenkin: My principal concern about the communications allowance is that it will be used to promote the image and reputation not of the House, but of individual Members of Parliament, which is an entirely different matter. The danger is that the allowance will strengthen the position of incumbents because Members could spend the money to shore themselves up and make them more difficult to challenge. There is no better example of that than the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who should be embarrassed by his postage allowance.

Theresa May: Indeed, that concern underlies several comments made by Conservative Members. There is a fine balance to be struck. Members have a duty to inform their constituents about activities related to their job. That job does not just involve sitting in this place and passing legislation. It involves working on community issues and matters that have been raised in the constituency. However, if correspondence does not inform constituents about Members' activities in relation to their job, it becomes party political literature, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, rather than literature that should be funded by the taxpayer.

Dawn Butler: I am bemused by some of the arguments that we are hearing in relation to the communications allowance. It depends on whether we consider ourselves constituency MPs who communicate with our constituents, or Members who just sit in the House and spout Opposition arguments. Those of us who are constituency MPs communicate with our constituents as much as we can, as many times as we can. An annual report adds to that. I have found that people contacted me after receiving an annual report. As the right hon. Lady said, our job is not confined to the House. We have to communicate with our constituents. Those MPs who are not doing so should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Over-communication there, I think.

Theresa May: It is up to individual Members to decide how they wish to communicate with their constituents. One does not have to be a constituency Member who communicates or a Member who participates in the House. One can be botha Member who plays an active role in the House and who also communicates regularly with constituents. Ultimately, the decision whether that communication is appropriate is taken by the voters. They will decide at the ballot box whether they think their Member of Parliament is doing an appropriate job.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is not part of the answer to the reasonable concerns that have been expressed to have strict rules as to the content and use of the communications allowance? That would have to be done at a later stage. There may be Members who will try to stretch the rules, as it is alleged some Members do now, but the House must deal with that. Is not the answer to accept the principle and go for strict rules as to how the allowance is used when the details are decided?

Theresa May: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent: we need a set of rules so that every Member knows where they stand. The concern is that it is difficult to draw those rules up in a way that meets all the requirements of Members of Parliament. That is why I prefer an overall budget, which allows the Member of Parliament to choose how they communicatewhether they wish to produce an annual report, whether they wish to communicate electronically or by correspondence, and so on. Those are the issues for a Member to decide. Ultimately, voters will determine whether or not they have done a good job.

Charles Walker: It is a matter of striking the right balance. Of course our constituents need to hear from us about what we are doing. Most of us in the House know what is legitimate communication and what taking the Michael is. A few Members, especially in the run-up to the 2005 general election, took the mickey out of allowances.

Theresa May: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, although at least one of those who took the Michael, as he calls it, in relation to allowances lost their seat, so the voters gave a clear message to that individual.
	I am conscious that I have been speaking for a considerable time, so I shall move on to the chunkier topic of September sittings. I agree with the Leader of the House that September provides an opportunity for Members to visit constituency organisations which it is otherwise not possible for them to visit, because such organisations often meet on weekdays and do not meet in August. In September Members have far greater opportunities to get around the constituency and do constituency business. It is important that they have September to do that.
	My view is simple. We could change the order of the terms of our sittings. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is no longer in her seat, raised a wider issue. In my view, the party conference season is in desperate need of a shake-up. I would far prefer party conferences to take place over weekends, than during the week. In terms of enabling more people to have access to them [Interruption.]
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey asks whether I am in favour of votes at party conferences. I suspect that he did not pay quite as much attention as he might have done to every day of the Conservative party conference. I will tell him that on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesdaynot the Sundayof party conference, I chaired a session where members of our candidates' list put policy proposals to the conference and conference voted on those proposals, which are going forward to our policy review. So we did indeed have votes, and what is more, they were votes on policy.
	We need to change the party conference [Interruption.] I am not sure what the hon. Member for Reading, West is saying as he bounces up and down in his seat. I have always found the hon. Gentleman most stimulating in our exchanges. He is almost a neighbour, but not a direct neighbour because of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson).

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way once again. I support her in her efforts to reform the party conference season. We are discussing September sittings, but the conference season seems to last the whole of September. Why can we not come back earlier, in the first or second week of September? The only reason, it seems, is party conferences. Surely holding the House to account is much more important than the party conferences. The parties should accommodate an earlier return of the House.

Theresa May: I am tempted to say that rather more people may be interested in attending our party conferences than the hon. Gentleman's party conference, so it may be a more significant matter for the main political parties.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the motion tabled by the Leader of the House closes the option of September sittings? The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who said she would support the Leader of the House, nevertheless recognised that we needed to reform the year. The option of September sittings must form part of any review. Does the right hon. Lady agree that if we close the option of September sittings, we close off the possibility of an orderly balance in the year?

Theresa May: Whatever the House may choose to do today, the House may choose in future to reconsider the balance of the year and come back with a different proposal. What we are debating today is whether we reintroduce the two weeks of September sittings that we had in 2003 and 2004. I do not think those worked particularly well in terms of the business that was dealt with during those sittings. There were other issues in relation to the works on the House, but the way in which the House manages those works can be addressed. For the reasons that I have set out, I believe that September is a good month for Members to be in their constituencies for longer periods than would otherwise be possible.

Chris Mullin: Does the right hon. Lady agree that to give the Government an 80-day holiday from scrutiny is unhealthy in a democracy and ought not to happen?

Theresa May: My two final points touch on that aspect. First, I welcome the opportunity that was introduced this year to table questions during the summer recess. It was a limited opportunity. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider expanding the opportunity for Members to table questions to Ministers during the summer recess, so that to some extent Government can be held to account.
	The second point is one that I raise tentatively, as I do not have an immediate answer to it. An amendment which was not selected referred to it, although I do not agree with the proposal that it contained. The House may have to consider the matter of how Parliament can be recalled if necessary. It would be right and proper to consider that as part of a wider review. I support the motion tabled by the Leader of the House.
	I shall briefly deal with the other points raised. We welcome the proposals on matters sub judice, and particularly the extra flexibility that they will introduce. The new discretionary powers for the Speaker will, if exercised well, give us greater opportunity for debate. I welcome the proposals relating to coroners' courts, too. I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about the European Standing Committees. The Government promised to introduce proposals on European Standing Committees and on the scrutiny of European legislation. The Leader of the House's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), now the Minister for Europe

David Heath: The silent Minister for Europe.

Theresa May: Yes, he is the silent Europe Minister, as the hon. Gentleman reminds me.
	Proposals on the subject were promised a considerable time ago, and hon. Members are beginning to wonder whether the Government were being genuine when they said that suggested changes would be put before the House. There is a real need to consider the issue of public sittings of the European Scrutiny Committees, and the way in which we scrutinise European legislation, because like secondary legislation, all too often it simply does not receive proper scrutiny in the House, although we know that it has a considerable impact on our constituents and the country.
	I support the proposal on short speeches, as it makes sense, although if we had longer time for certain debatesfor example, if we had two days for Second Readingsmore Members could make a full contribution to the debate, without time restrictions applying.
	In conclusion, I support the proposals on the legislative process, but the proposed communications allowance is not the right way forward. I support the Leader of the House in his other proposals, particularly those on September sittings.

David Winnick: I intend to press my amendment to the motion on September sittings to a Division at the appropriate time.
	As a preface to my remarks, the House may be interested to hear what occurredor did not occurwith regard to allowances 40 years ago, when I first entered the House, for another constituency. There was no secretarial allowance, but hon. Members got a third of what they paid their secretary back in tax. It was rarely a full-time secretary, for obvious reasons. We paid postage for all letters, which was not an incentive to do any copying, and for telephone calls outside London. Notepaper was strictly rationed, and I can remember trying to argue the case for more. Some might say, but not necessarily me, that we have gone from one extreme to another.
	I accept that my amendment, which is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, probably represents a minority viewpoint. I have no illusions: I know that all the indications are that the majority of Members will reject it. Nevertheless, it is important that the point of view that it represents should be put to the House and voted on. As I have said in interventions on other hon. Members, it seems quite wrong for the House to go into recess for a continuous period of 11 weeks. The issue is not whether we sit for longer than other Parliamentswe may well sit for longer than others in western Europe, and than the United States and Canadabut whether it is right that the House should be in recess for such a long period. That is the crux of the issue. I, like the hon. Members who will vote with me, find that unacceptable. There has been some progress: one could cite the example of written questions, which is obviously an advance, but it cannot possibly be considered a substitute for the House sitting.

Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman see any merit in the suggestion that the House should return earlier for the Christmas session, so that we do not come back for two weeks in September only to go away again, and so cause disruption to Parliament? Surely the sensible solution is to return in the middle or at the end of September, so that there is no disruption to the House, and so that we can subject the Government to scrutiny from that time onwards?

David Winnick: One thing is absolutely certainas has already been pointed out, if the amendment is rejected and a Government decision supported by the Opposition Front-Benchers is accepted, all options are closed down. I have no illusions on that score either. If the amendment were agreed to, which it will not be, it would obviously give us a great incentive to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests and to consider other options that are put forward. I repeat that if we accept the Government proposal, which is supported by the Opposition Front Bench, all other options are closed downand for a pretty long period, I should imagine.

Jack Straw: First, the purpose of the motion in my name is to enable the House to make a decision on the subject, rather than having one foisted on it by the Government. Secondly, the motion will enable us to make a permanent decision, but such decisions are not for ever. Thirdly, if it assists my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, I am happy to give an undertaking on my own behalfand I shall make the suggestion to the Modernisation Committeethat, before the end of the coming Parliament, we will review the practice of not having September sittings, if the motion in my name is passed.

David Winnick: I have a great deal of respect for my right hon. Friend, as he knows, but my view is as I stated it a moment ago. As regards the end of the next Parliament, that is some time away, and I shall be rather pessimistic if the Government's motion is acceptedbut it is, of course, for the House to decide on that.
	The recommendation in the 2002 report of the Modernisation Committee was clear:
	We believe that Parliament could be more effective if it was not absent for such a long continuous period. We recommend that the Commons should rise in mid-July for the summer recess and return in early September.
	Robin Cook, our late esteemed colleague, argued in the report's favour. In debate in the House, he said:
	Better scrutiny is also why I believe that the Commons should be prepared to return as a matter of routine for September sittings. It is not healthy for the elected representatives of the British people to be absent for three months at a stretch. Too much happens while we are away, and too many decisions necessarily have to be taken by Government in our absence, for which there is no opportunity for Ministers to give an account to the Commons.[ Official Report, 29 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 692.]
	It should be said that the Modernisation Committee's report was passed by a very large majorityby 411 votes to 47.
	It has been argued that the matter of the September sittings was all very unfortunate, and that when we met in September in 2003 and 2004 it did not work out well, but I have no evidence of that. Government business was undertaken. It is true that on the last occasion, in 2004, hooligans invaded the Chamber, but that is hardly an argument for not having September sittingshooligans could have invaded the Chamber at any period. Where is the evidence that it was wrong to hold those sittings, or that the Government, the Opposition and Labour Back Benchers did not have all the opportunities that they usually have when the House sits? I do not accept the argument that it was all a failure. I was present on both occasions and I cannot remember any such verdict being reached.
	As regards the issue of what Members of Parliament do, I do not argue that we are all lazy. Indeed, it could well be argued, especially on the evidence of the past few years, that Members of Parliament are more likely to be workaholics than lazy. I do not work on the assumption that we all go to the beach in some foreign land for the whole recess. That would be rather boring and expensive. Like most hon. Members, I take a fortnight's holiday and then I do my constituency work, and I do not pat myself on the back for it. That constituency work is important, but surely it is not argued that if we came back for a period in September we would not have time to do it. If we go into recess in mid-July, as we did in the two years in question, we would have time to do that work in July, or in the latter part of August. If we sat for two weeks in September, we could do that work between those two weeks and our return in October. It cannot be argued that if we were in the House, debating and doing our job, we would not have sufficient time for constituency work.
	I take the viewI hope that it is not outdatedthat however important our constituency work and however many letters we send, our main job, as I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, is to hold the Government to account in Parliament. Indeed, that is the reason why we were elected. I accept that some of my hon. Friends are not enthusiastic about the amendment, but they might be more enthusiastic about September sittings if we were in opposition. It is difficult to understand why Opposition Members are not keen on September sittings. If I were in oppositionand I served in opposition for an 18-year stretchI would be even keener.

Dawn Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that while part of our job is to be here, it is also our job to ascertain our constituents' views and air them in Westminster?

David Winnick: Of course I do. I have tremendous respect for my hon. Friend and I do not dispute her assertion. Surely, however, she would not challenge my view that our main job is nothing other than our work in the Chamber, Select Committees and so on? I hope that that is always the case, as it is the basis of our parliamentary democracy.
	Much criticism has been levelled at MPs, particularly last week when our expenses were published. It is difficult to accept the way in which expenses are designated. My secretary, for example, does not receive expensesshe receives a salary, and my constituency assistant does, too. We are subject to a good deal of criticismsome of it ill-judged, I acceptmuch of it directed at our salaries, pension entitlement and expenses. No doubt there will considerable public controversy about the new allowance that may, or may not, be justified. The perception that we will reject the opportunity to sit in September does not help the House of Commons, and we should take that into account.

Martin Salter: May I chastise my hon. Friend, because he does not do himself or his argument any favours by referring to the allowances and budgets that we receive to pay our staff, and provide a service to our constituents, as expenses? Expenses are what journalists receive; budgets and allowances are what MPs receive to do the job of work that we are sent to Westminster to perform.

David Winnick: My hon. Friend would be perfectly entitled to make such a remark about me if he would only listen for once. It is the first time that I have been criticised in an intervention for the opposite of what I said.
	In conclusion, the word recess is virtually unknown outside the Westminster village. Members may have met constituents and others who talk about the recess, but I have only done so once or twice in all the years in which I have been an MP. It is a Westminster word. To the average person, it is a holiday. Most people generously accept that during that holiday we do a good deal of constituency work but, nevertheless, the term is not used outside the Westminster village. My amendment gives the House the opportunity to sit in September. If it were carriedI accept that that is unlikelythere would be consultations between the Front-Bench spokesmen of the three main parties and the usual channels to try to remedy the arrangement whereby we returned for two weeks in September before the recess resumed. Urgent steps would be taken, as recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) when he was Leader of the House. In a reply to a question that I asked during business questions almost a year ago on 10 November, he said that the political parties could be consulted about conference arrangements and so on.
	There is therefore a solutionwe could return to Westminster in late September, so the recess would not resume. I emphasise that if the House rejects my amendment, it is unlikely, despite what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, that there will be any change for a long time. That is unacceptable and we would not do ourselves any favours. I therefore urge right hon. and hon. Members to give serious consideration to my proposal.
	2.25 pm

David Heath: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I shall come to his amendment, but may I pick up one point that he made? He said that the term recess is not used outside the House. It is in common usage in America, where it means playtime. One problem we face is that many of our constituents think that that is what recess means for usit is a playtime that is not used effectively to hold the Government to account.
	The most important commodity in the House is time, which is needed by the Government to ensure the progress of their legislative programme. It matters to people affected by the legislation, as it ensures that there is proper scrutiny. It is important to Opposition Members, who should have the opportunity to raise serious matters on their parties' behalf. It is important, toothis ingredient is often forgottento Back Benchers, who often do not have the opportunities that are afforded to their Front-Bench colleagues, to raise issues that are vital for their constituencies during the passage of legislation and at other times. Any discussion that enables us to use the time available to the House more effectively is therefore valuable. I applaud the Leader of the House for introducing a wide-ranging series of motions. I do not agree with every proposal in that gallimaufry but, nevertheless, the House should have the opportunity to discuss them. He introduced them so promptly that some of them probably surprised some of his senior colleagues, but that is a matter for another day.
	May I deal with the Modernisation Committee report as a whole? The Leader of the House has urged us to welcome it, telling us in parenthesis that proposals that have not been selected to appear as motions on the Order Paper will receive the implicit approval of the House if we agree the third motion. I applaud the work of the Modernisation Committee, but I wish to raise a number of issues on which it has not done such a good job and which give cause for concern. Addressing the thorny issue of programme motions and their consequences, it helpfully proposed that programme motions should not prejudge the interests of Front-Bench spokesmen on Second Reading or, as I suggested earlier, of Back Benchers with a particular concern that they wish to pursue in Committee. It is absurd that Government business managers affect to understand, before Second Reading, which issues are likely to be important, producing a programme motion on committal proceedings and an end date before assessing interest in the Bill. That is a perverse way of doing business, and I am sorry that the Leader of the House did not agree to the Committee's proposal.
	I am even sorrier that we have not received, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said, a proper response to the earlier proposal from the Procedure Committee to establish a proper business Committee for the House. In most modern legislatures, parties meet to programme business effectively, not by edict but by agreement, thus determining the legislature's opportunities to scrutinise business. We must return to that matter because the programme motion regime is simply not working. Programme motions work as guillotines, but they are introduced in circumstances in which guillotines are not required, as the House can manage its own timetabling business.

Malcolm Bruce: Is my hon. Friend aware that the process in the Scottish Parliament includes pre-legislative scrutiny and a business committee? All the public and private interest groups that are concerned about legislation in Scotland have found that the conduct of legislation in Scotland is much superior on a practical basis to that in Westminster. Is there not some advantage in learning from a devolved Assembly that has developed ideas, which this Parliament has failed to do?

David Heath: That is a good example, but, as my hon. Friend knows, we have turned our backs on many other sensible procedures through simple reaction, although such procedures could make us a more effective legislature.
	The Modernisation Committee did not properly address two other parts of Bill procedure, the most important of which is the Report stage. First, when a Bill is on Report, it is the one opportunity for Back Benchers to table and debate amendments. The opportunity is often denied by the timetabling, which curtails discussion on Report and which orders the business in such a way that Front Benchers have their say while later amendments are not debated. Secondly, swathes of Government amendments that are barely scrutinised are often introduced on Report, which denies the House the opportunity to do justice to its scrutiny role. The other place is offended when it gets a half-scrutinised Bill, large elements of which have never been seen or discussed by this House, because it has to try to put right what we have failed to do on primary legislation.
	Another issue is when we find ourselves in dispute with another place. The Modernisation Committee report refers to the Reasons Committee, and it concludes that that Committee is not very good, but we cannot do much about it. The Reasons Committee is a farce. We all troop into the little Room behind the Speaker's Chair, and the Minister reads out an entirely spurious reason for disagreeing with the other place. There was a classic example of that when I spoke on home affairsthe reason was this House does not believe that the amendments are appropriate.

Dawn Butler: That is fair enough.

David Heath: That is not fair enough in a sensible, grown-up legislature. When we disagree, we should have a sensible dialogue between the two Houses. We should have a conciliation procedure that respects the views expressed at each end of the Corridor and tries to assimilate them, whenever that is possible. Then we would not have sterile ping-pong between the Houses, one-hour sittings dealing with half a dozen amendments from another place, which do not do justice to the views expressed, and the feeling that that is a dysfunctional part of our legislative process.

Bob Spink: I want to respond to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about programme motions. I am sure that he wants to avoid the possibility of cosy arrangements being made between party managers in smoke-filled rooms, which impedes this House's ability to hold the Executive to account.

David Heath: That is the reason why I have made my suggestions. At the moment, there is a nod and a wink between the usual channels, and then a programme motion is plonked before the House, which can take it or leave itthe answer is that we take it, because there is a Government majority in favour of the programme motion. That is not a good enough way of doing business, and it does not do justice to hon. Members.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman is giving the House a catalogue of complaints about the work of the Modernisation Committee, but that Committee is unique, because its members include the Leader of the House, who is Chairman, and the shadow Leader of the House. In view of the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench position, if he is that concerned about what the Modernisation Committee gets up to, why does he not sit on it?

David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman should think for a moment, because it is an extraordinary proposition that one can only comment on a Select Committee report if one sits on the Committee. He may be surprised to learn that I do not entirely agree with him. I sat on the Modernisation Committee for a short time, but it became irreconcilable with the other duties that I perform on behalf of my party, which is why I stood down from that Committee and asked my hon. Friend the Chief Whip to sit in my place. I am sure that my hon. Friend does a good job in Committee, but that does not stop me giving my opinion on the conclusions of the Modernisation Committee in a debate such as this. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to prevent me from giving my views.
	Turning to the specifics, the proposal on public Bill committees will commend itself to the House. There is widespread support for the suggestion that we should take a more reasoned view, including taking evidence, before conducting line-by-line scrutiny, although one should not be at the expense of the other. I hope that we will not lose the capacity closely to scrutinise what is written in statute, because I am one of those old-fashioned people who thinks that it matters what we write into laws and that what we write into laws should be right. At the moment, that happens in Committee, and I do not want to lose that procedure.
	In an earlier intervention, I raised the issue of delegated legislation with the Leader of the House. Given that so much legislation that has a crucial effect on our constituents is now secondary legislation, there may be occasions when it is appropriate for a Committee considering delegated legislation to take evidence before reaching a conclusion. I support the view that it should be possible to amend delegated legislation, because we often make bad law simply because there is no way to express a different view. It would also be in the interests of the Government to be able to accede to a sensible amendment in a Committee considering delegated legislation rather than passing flawed legislation that must be amended later.
	The communications allowance is a more difficult matter, and I have listened carefully to the exchanges on the subject. It is a matter for individual hon. Members, so I can only speak personally, but I have not been persuaded that the communications allowance is necessary. I find it difficult to understand how some hon. Members manage to spend quite as much as they do on their postage allowance within the rules of the House, as I understand them. Some hon. Members have extraordinarily busy inner-city constituencies, and they deal with a huge volume of correspondence that is far beyond what, for example, I would expect to receive in my constituency. Those hon. Members reply to all that correspondence by letter, but they get nowhere near the upper limits that other hon. Members find it appropriate to claim.
	I suspect, although I cannot prove it, that there are widely differing interpretations of the current rules. The starting point should be interpreting the rules consistently and ensuring that the rules are clear. There are instances in which it is appropriate to write on House of Commons notepaper to a particular constituent, because one is aware of something that will affect that constituent directly and one would like their view, which is legitimate parliamentary business.
	I am equally certain that something that is essentially a party political leaflet in a House of Commons envelope is not an appropriate use of taxpayers' money. We should be able clearly to distinguish between the two. I do not take the view that annual reports are a waste of time. They communicate directly between hon. Members and their constituents and ensure that constituents are aware of the range and availability of services that Members offer them. However, Members who put out a glossy leaflet on a much more regular basis than an annual report are probably abusing the use of taxpayers' money for party political aims. It is important to get the balance right and to ensure that the rules are clear.
	Some Members face difficulties because our allowances system does not properly cater for the variances between the running costs of constituency offices. The most appropriate cost to ring-fence might be that of office rental, because that can differ hugely as between a central London location and somewhere in an extremely rural area. It seems perverse that some Members can spend a large part of their so-called expenses just on ensuring that they have an office available to their constituents while others will pay much less and have more money available for other activities that they undertake. I worry that the rules sometimes seem to be applied in a very arbitrary fashion, not because the Fees Office wants to be arbitrary but because we have failed to provide sufficient and adequate guidance as to what are appropriate expenses.

Stewart Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the logical corollary of his line of argument is that we could be on a slippery slope to creating different types of Members of Parliament based on value judgments as to the type of casework that they do and their geographical location? For instance, I have a lot of asylum and immigration cases in my constituency, but it would be a retrograde step to make a value judgment that my case load was more deserving of a bigger allowance in delivering my duty as a Member of Parliament than someone in a rural area such as himself.

David Heath: It is not a value judgment, but merely a recognition that different costs are involved. Given that our allowance system is supposed to equalise Members to make it equally possible for us all to do our work effectively, where there are fixed costs, which take a very large percentage of some Members' allowances and not those of others, it is sensible to recognise that rather than to pretend that it is otherwise. We do that in relation to accommodation, so why not office accommodation? That is an odd discrepancy. I will not support the communications allowance because I suspect that it acts as a strong support for incumbency, which is not necessarily a good outcome.
	On September sittings, I have always taken the view that it is wrong for the House to be absent from this place for a quarter of the year. It is not right that Government should not be scrutinised during that time while we are all away in our constituencies. My problem with the Leader of the House's proposal is that removing the possibility of September sittings will lead to stasis. That is why I shall support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall, North, as I would have supported that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) had it been selected. Having said that, I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North that we should not be too dogmatic about the form that this should take. There must be careful discussion between the parties. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said, we need to reconsider radically the whole parliamentary year to see how we can use time effectively to reduce the gaps between our sitting times. If that means adjusting the party conference season, so be it. Let us go to the parties and say: We want to do this; please accommodate the requirements of the House of Commons.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has thought of my point in advance. Would not right hon. and hon. Members find the proposed two weeks' scrutiny of the Executive, which should happen, more attractive if at the same time we proposed scrapping the seaside conferences for the three main parties? They are out of date, too long and no longer fit for purpose, as the Home Secretary might say. Were that a combined package, we might find that we had a majority.

David Heath: Our conference is not a waste of time, because it determines the policy of our party. We have this strange idea that we vote at our conference, so we would have to find an alternative time to hold it.
	We need to look sensibly at how we structure the parliamentary year to reduce the gaps. We should accept the fact that important constituency activities go on during the recess for which we need to find capacity. One of my activitiesit will not apply to some of those who sit for urban seatsis to go round all the small villages in my constituency. I have about 120 villages and get round about 100 of them in a two-week period. I would not want to lose that opportunity, because it is an important part of my role in keeping in touch with my electorate. However, I do not have to do it in the last two weeks of September; I can arrange my timetable around the parliamentary timetable, as can the parties.
	Further to the recess, it is wrong that we have no power to recall Parliament, and we must reconsider that at some stage. It is not satisfactory to leave it in the hands of Ministers. If Members feel sufficiently strongly that there is a matter that should be considered, they should be able to raise that with Mr. Speaker, who should then have the discretion to recall Parliament. One of the consequences of the very long summer recess is that we hear almost immediate calls for a recall. This summer, someone asked for a recall before we had even gone into recess, which must be a record. It is like Christmaswe shall start to think about when we should be recalled in the summer recess before we have started the Easter holidays.
	I entirely support the proposals on sub judice matters, coroners' courts and Select Committee evidence.
	On European scrutiny, the House has a huge deficiency and the sooner we get to grips with it the better. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that the meetings of the European Scrutiny Committee should be open; I have not the slightest idea why they are not. That upsets me. It also upsets me that sessions of the European Council of Ministers are closed, not open and transparent, but that is not within our remit.
	The proposal on short speeches is sensible. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] I say that at the risk of casting opprobrium on myself.
	I will oppose the proposal on the tabling of amendments in Committee. I entirely agree that the tabling of Government amendments at the last minute is not helpful and should be avoided. The Government should have protocols requiring Ministers to table amendments in good time. It should be good practice for Opposition Members to be able to table amendments early as well, but an unreasonable constraint will be imposed on Opposition members of Committees if they must produce amendments so early that they cannot consider them properly.
	There is currently a very narrow window between the selection of a Committee and its first sitting. Tuesday sittings often raise questions that can be dealt with by means of amendments at Thursday sittings, but if the House accepts this proposal it will be impossibleother than at the Chairman's discretionto table an amendment as a result of a ministerial reply on a Tuesday that can be dealt with on the Thursday. That would restrict the capacity of Opposition parties to hold the Government properly to account and to improve legislation, and I shall therefore resist the proposal.

Ann Coffey: I particularly welcome the motion relating to the legislative process, and the proposal for Bills to be sent to a special Committee that can take evidence directly from those interested in them. I had some direct experience of that in the last Parliament, when the Bill that became the Children and Adoption Act 2006 went to a Joint Committee of both Houses. We took evidence from a range of organisations and experts. I am pleased to say that the then Minister accepted some of our recommendations, and that changes were made to the Bill before it went to a Standing Committee.
	That Bill was not uncontroversial, as it introduced new court powers to deal with parents who disobeyed court rulings on contact orders. In the special Committee we were able to consider the best way of legislating in a difficult area without a confrontation between Committee members, which resulted in much better legislation. That was a valuable experience for me as a Member of Parliament, and a direct contradiction of my previous experiences on Standing Committees. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who described some of his own experiences on a Standing Committee.

Dawn Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that special Committees are also an important way of engaging the public with our legislative process? An evidence-based system helps them to feel more connected to Parliament, and more a part of any legislation that we produce here.

Ann Coffey: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, she advanced those arguments powerfully on the Modernisation Committee, of which she is a member.
	The other great advantage of special Committees is that they enable organisations with an interest to send representatives to a Committee directly rather than doing what they do nowrelying on Committee members to read prepared briefs into the proceedings. The advantage for Committee members is that those people in turn can be examined on some of their evidence. An Opposition Member recently complained bitterly about material put out by a children's organisation, saying that it was untrue and inaccurate.

Stewart Jackson: It was.

Ann Coffey: The value of a special Committee lies in the fact that an organisation that had produced such evidence could be challenged by Committee members to justify it. As we all know, not everything that organisations say is entirely accurate or, indeed, entirely true.
	If Back Benchers believe that Bills will be changed in the light of proper evidence, much more constructive work will be done when proposals are presented to Committees. At present Back Benchers in both Houses do not believe that a Bill can be easily altered once it is in Committee, so they tend to go through the motions. Standing Committees are hugely important to the making of laws. They are not given much of the limelight of publicity, but they engage hours of people's time, and what emerges from them is the law that we have made. That is one of the most important things that we do as Members of Parliament. If we do not believe that we can change what we do in any way, it is hardly surprising that Members themselves sometimes become disengaged from the legislative process.
	When I visit schools and am asked what I do as a Member of Parliament, I say, Well, Members of Parliament make the laws. Part of our problem is that to most, if not all, members of the public, the process is not understandable. They therefore do not understand how they can influence the way in which we make laws, although they care passionately about some of the proposals that we may or may not advance. We talk of disengagement from our democracy. We cannot engage with the public unless what we do is seen to be transparent, and unless the public feel that they can play a part other than by electing us once every four years. Most people currently believe that that is the only way in which they can influence what happens.
	Like other Members, I receive hundreds of requests to sign early-day motions every year. Recently I have been receiving even more, generated by postcard and e-mail campaignsinitiated, usually, by lobby groups. The public understand what signing an early-day motion means, and they believe that it has an impact on what happens in this place. That is not entirely true, of course: thousands of early-day motions are signed each year, and few of them have any influence at all. Nevertheless, the public understand what is meant by asking a Member of Parliament to sign an early-day motion.
	The special Committee system will enable my constituents, some of whom have considerable personal and expert experience in particular fields, to contribute to the passage of legislation. Presumably they will able to submit written evidence and be called to give evidence on matters of which they have special knowledge. They will see that as a real, understandable way of contributing to debates on legislation and to the parliamentary process, enabling them to connect with this place. That can only be good for us and for democracy.
	I believe that modernisation must be about changing our procedures, making them more transparent to allow wider engagement with the public. That, for me, is the modernisation agenda, and these proposals for change are an important step along the modernisation road.
	I am very interested in the citizenship curriculum. In my constituency, teachers are doing excellent work. Many schools have school councils, and the children are involved in projects. We have an active youth council. Only last week I attended a meeting with some young people to discuss transport with representatives of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and Stagecoach. The young people made very interesting comments, having spent a great deal of time thinking about what they wanted to say. The problem then was where to take the concerns that they had raised, and where they perceived those concerns to have been taken.
	It is disappointing that a recent Ofsted report referred to a poor national standard of teaching in schools. That is not my experience in the constituency. It cannot be right for young people to leave school with excellent A-levels or GCSEs and no idea how our democracy works, but it is not enough for us to ask for higher standards of teaching if the young people to whom I talked on the youth council do not know how to contribute their comments to the democratic process. The two things that we must do should go hand in hand. We have to offer engagement to the public, and also ask for the standard of citizenship teaching in our schools to improve.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for schools to be able to arrange visits to the Palace of Westminster? The cost of visiting the Houses of Parliament is a big hurdle for many of my constituents in North Durham. Would it be helpful if support could be given to schools and youth groups that wish to come and see the House in action, and how our democracy works?

Ann Coffey: We on the Modernisation Committee discussed at length how we could support school visits. I know that the education department of the House of Commons is visiting various constituencies to try to find out their needs in accessing to Parliament. After it has finished those visits, I hope that it will report back to the Committee.

Dawn Butler: The Youth Parliament is seeking a debate in the House of Commons. The national Youth Parliament includes all the schools from around the UK. That might be planned for the recess.

Ann Coffey: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, there is a lot of interest in Parliament among young people; theirs is not a totally disengaged generation, although that is sometimes the perception.
	We must find a way of ensuring that the important citizenship curriculum in schools is taught properly and well, but at the same time ensure that we modernise Parliament so that young people, whose interest in it we have encouraged through that citizens' agenda, feel that they can have some input into this place.
	I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has introduced the modernisation proposals, and I look forward to there being many more of them, particularly to those that might arise out of our current inquiry into the role of the Back Bencher, which I know that he welcomes.

Greg Knight: I shall start by referring to the two motions relating to sub judice, but before I get on to the meat of my argument, I wish to thank all members of the Procedure Committee for their support and hard work. It does not involve trips to exotic places overseas, and often there is no media coverage, but, nevertheless, it is very important. I also join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to my predecessor as Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who I am pleased to see in his place.
	Parliament's sub judice rule effectively prevents debate on individual cases while they are active before the courts. The rule is set out in a resolution that was agreed by each House in 2001. Our predecessor Committee reported on the resolution as a whole in March 2005 and, while recognising that it has sometimes created difficulties for Members, particularly in delaying debates, that report did not recommend any change to the rule.
	We decided to return to the subject mainly because of representations that we received from Members that the implementation of the rule was preventing them from debating issues that deserved to be raised in Parliament. There was particular concern about coroners courts, where an inquest could be opened that then adjourned for months, and even years. One case that was drawn to our attention was adjourned for more than two years while police inquiries and other investigations were carried out. I shall return to the issue of delay.
	It was put to us that the House authorities were repeatedly over-cautious in the advice that they gave, and that, as a consequence, Members were finding that any hint of active court proceedings was enough to prevent debate or questioning not only on the case itself, but on related issues of general policy. That is not the purpose of the rule, and Members should not be given the impression that it is.
	As we pursued our inquiry, we discovered a number of reasons why that impression had been created. First, the rule is, in its entirety, subject to the discretion of the Chair. Mr. Speaker has the power to set it aside if it is his opinion that a particular case is of sufficient importance that debate, or questions relating to it, should be allowed. Our predecessor Committee recommended in its report that where Members believe the rule to be unreasonably impeding the work of Parliament they should refer the matter to Mr. Speaker and ask him to exercise his discretion.
	However, many Members have not always understood how they should go about asking Mr. Speaker to exercise his discretion. In particular, some Members did not appreciate that the discretion can be exercised only by Mr. Speaker himself. It cannot be negotiated with Clerks in the Table Office. We have therefore recommended that the Table Office should produce a short printed guide to the rule, which I hope will provide a clear explanation of that, and of other aspects of the rule.
	Secondly, the House authorities have, perhaps, been somewhat over-cautious in their advice on the implementation of the rule. That is becauseto be fair to them, and to borrow the frank words of the former Clerk of the House, Sir Roger Sands
	we have quite often been let down by Members in this matter.
	This is how he explains what he meant by that: for example, some Members have, applied for an Adjournment debate on a general matter of public policy but without any warning produced
	a string of details about a very specific case, referring to individuals by name and generally looking to the Minister to do the job which the judge or the coroner should properly do.
	I hope that the House will agree that Mr. Speaker cannot be expected to exercise his discretion to allow debate if he cannot rely on the Member concerned to keep to the agreed terms of that debate.
	For that reason, we have recommended that there should be a new Standing Order that explicitly gives Mr. Speaker power to direct a Member to resume his or her seat if he or she oversteps the agreed mark in relation to sub judice matters. It is proposed that that power also be extended to those who chair Westminster Hall debates and non-legislative Standing Committeesor General Committees, as we are soon likely to call them.
	It is my Committee's belief that, armed with the specific powers in the new Standing Order, Mr. Speaker will be much better placed to exercise his discretion in a greater number of cases, and in more sensitive cases he will, we hope, be able to agree to allow a Member to have a debate, its scope having been agreed beforehand by the Member concerned.

John Maples: On discretion, the Order of the House regarding sub judice restricts Mr. Speaker's discretion to a case that
	concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services.
	In the recommendations of my right hon. Friend's Committee, it is simply said that the phrase national importance in the resolution should be interpreted reasonably. Why, in view of the other things that he has said and the submissions that I and others made to the predecessor Committee, did he not recommend that that part of the resolution should be amended so that the definition encompasses only the facts in dispute in the court case, rather than all the peripheral issues, which currently get banned?

Greg Knight: We took the view that it was better to proceed by a moderate degree, rather than to suggest, for example, the wholesale abolition of the rule or a wide exemption from the rule. I think that this will be acceptable to Members, should the House agree to the suggestion tonight, for the reasons that I have partly outlined and shall continue to outline, and also for another reason that I shall refer to later, to do with delay. The issue of delay, too, was causing a great deal of concern in all parts of the House.

Kevan Jones: I accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes that Members could apply for an Adjournment debate and then introduce information or subjects that were not in its title. However, will the Speaker or the Chair be given guidance on how to interpret what is being put forward? A Member could bring something forward and at that time the Speaker, or the Chair of Westminster Hall, might not have detailed knowledge of that individual case. How will the Speaker and the Chair be able to decide whether what has been put forward breaks the rule?

Greg Knight: If I may, I shall deal with that issue a little later, because a development is taking place, to which I shall refer, that has great bearing on it. If, once I have dealt with it, the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, I invite him to intervene on me again.
	If the House agrees to these proposals, I should expect to see fewer refusals to allow a debate where there is an issue to discuss that can be dealt with without compromising pending cases. In approving our report and the introduction of the Standing Order, the House will be establishing a new and firmer base from which the Speaker will be able to exercise his discretion, confident that he has both the power of the Standing Order and the support of the House.
	We did consider whether the rule itself was wrong or needed amendment, but like our predecessor Committee, we concluded that the rule should stand, that there was no need for a change to the wording of the resolution, and that coroners courts should remain within the scope of the House's sub judice rules. These conclusions are based, first, on the risk of prejudice to specific cases or inquests, and, secondly, on the ground of comity or non-interference with the judiciary.
	The Committee also considered in detail the issue of delay, which has been a particular problem with coroners' inquests. As I mentioned earlier, an inquest can be opened and then adjourned for months or even years. It is ironic that if a constituent is seriously injured it is likely that the Member concerned will have no difficulty in raising the issue in the House, but if that constituent is killed rather than seriously injured, because the death results in an inquest, which is likely to be opened and then adjourned, the matter instantly becomes sub judice. We considered whether it would be practical to establish a trigger point later than the opening of the inquest for the application of the sub judice rule to coroners courts. I am afraid that in the light of the evidence that we tookincluding from the Attorney-Generalwe were forced to conclude that there is no alternative point to which the trigger could be connected.
	We did, and I do, recognise that these delays are very frustrating for Members. However, under the Contempt Of Court Act 1981, the length of time between an alleged contempt and the proceedings of the case itself is an important criterion by which the extent of the contempt is judged. Although I do not believe that that Act can or should be applied to proceedings in this House, we do recommend in our report that Mr. Speaker take particular account of the question of delay in considering whether to exercise his discretion. Moreover, I believe that the Government's proposals in the draft Coroners Bill for a more professional coroner service and a chief coroner's office offers the prospect of more timely and accurate advice on the state of individual inquests than has previously been possible. I hope that that partly answers the point raised earlier by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).
	The problems associated with delay might be resolved in the not too distant future. I received a letter from the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs that is very relevant to the issue of delay, and I should like to share part of it with the House. I had told her that the Committee was looking into this matter, and particularly the very long delays that often occur when inquests are adjourned. In referring to the draft Coroners Bill, she said the following:
	I should like to draw your attention to one change of policy, underpinning the draft Bill which may reduce the number of occasions when the sub judice rule needs to be invoked. The Bill makes a distinction between coroners' duty to investigate and their duty to hold an inquest. This distinction will mean that, in practice, coroners will not, as they do now, routinely open and adjourn inquests at the start of their inquiry into a death. Instead, when coroners believe that a death falls into a category which they are obliged to look into, they will begin an investigation. They will not, therefore, open an inquest until later in the process when they are ready to either hold a pre-inquest hearing or to hear the case in full.
	That is very important. She continues:
	We will need to assess how this change will impact on the exemption that coroner's cases receive from debate in Parliament under the sub judice rule, but certainly one interpretation could be that a coroner's investigation and inquest would equate to the distinction in the criminal justice system between a police investigation and the commencement of court proceedings.
	I hope that the problem that some Members have experienced of an inquest being adjourned for a very long time, and of their being unable, therefore, to debate the issue, might soon be consigned to history.

Nicholas Winterton: May I commend my right hon. Friend on his Committee's report? Does he agree with me that if Members of this House are to do their duty on behalf of their constituents and of other constituency interests, his proposal is absolutely essential? Does he further agree that the very telling and extremely lucid evidence that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) gave to the Committee when I chaired itand, I believe, subsequentlyin respect of a constituency case has had an important influence on his Committee and its decision, which will ensure that Members can do their job in this place?

Greg Knight: I am very grateful for the support of my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished former Chairman of the Committee, and I agree with what he says about the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). I hope that the very encouraging letter that I received from the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs will mean that in future, when a coroner realises that a considerable period of time will elapse before the evidence is assembled, he will open an investigation, not an inquest. That will mean that in the interim period, issues of wider concern could be discussed in this House.

Kevan Jones: That clarifies the position and is helpful to those of us who have experienced the lengthy delays associated with coroners courts. However, what will happen when the complaint is about not an individual case, but a multitude of casesin other words, when the core complaint is about the coroner himself? In such a situation, reference might have to be made to individual cases in order to argue that the coroner in question was at fault. For example, there is one coroner in the north-east who was appallingly slow in dealing with inquests.

Greg Knight: The matter is not yet cut and dried. The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs goes on to say in her letter that the Lord Chief Justice is being consulted, and I should hope that concerns such as those expressed by the hon. Gentleman will be examined by the right hon. and learned Lady and the Lord Chief Justice before they finalise the scope and terms of the Coroners Bill, which I understand will be pursued initially as a draft pre-legislative Bill. The hon. Gentleman can therefore pursue these matters further when we debate that Bill. However, this development suggests to me that the Government are looking at this issue thoroughly and sensitively, and for that they should be congratulated.
	I therefore hope that, for the reasons that I have outlined, the House will decide not to divide on this aspect of today's business and will instead give the proposals their full support.
	I welcome the report of the Modernisation Committee, of which I am a member; indeed, I took part in the deliberations that led to the report's formation. I particularly support the proposal that pre-legislative scrutiny should become more widespread; that is good news for the parliamentary process and for effective scrutiny. Too often, when Ministers bring a Bill to this House, they are unwilling to countenance changes to it, regarding such changes as almost a personal attack on themselves or their policy. Having a pre-legislative phase to draft Bills will, I hope, mean that we get more debate and discussion, and a greater willingness on the part of Ministers to accept amendments where they are deemed appropriate.

Jack Straw: It is precisely that characteristic that is also the advantage of the new Committee stage of Bills. Speaking from direct experience of asylum and immigration legislation, because there were four evidence-taking sessions, I was able to withdraw gracefully a couple of proposals that we all thought were very good ideas in opposition, but which turned out to be rather less than good on further examination. I was able to withdraw them far more easily than if they had come up in the adversarial part of the Committee stage, or on the Floor of the House.

Greg Knight: That is a powerful point. Anything that allows a Minister to change tack without losing face should be encouraged.
	Moving on to the Public Bill Committee proposals, I again fully support what is in the report. I hope that it will lead to less yah-boo politics at the Committee stage and a greater opportunity for constructive scrutiny and enlightened debate.
	In his opening remarks, the Leader of the House treated the House to his experience when he first came here as an Opposition Member. When I was the Government Whip on a Standing Committee that was about to be appointed, I had a list of names and showed it to the Chief Whip. He said, Why do you want to put him on your Committee? I said, He knows something about the subject. He said, Yes, that is a very good reason for keeping him off the Committee. We should move on from the days when Government members of committees were told to shut up and keep quiet and Opposition Members felt that they had to talk and talk to fill the time. We can do better. I believe that the proposals in the report will show that that is the case.
	The Modernisation Committee report contains a suggestion that we introduce the innovation of requiring Members to table an explanatory note on their amendments. That is an interesting suggestion. My Committee is happy to look at it, including in the context of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who was worried about extending the time for tabling amendments. If we can find a way of having a satisfactory system for tabling explanatory notes to amendments, some of the concerns about a raft of amendments being tabled at the last minute, particularly where they refer to other legislation and therefore are not immediately intelligible, may be allayed.
	On the issue of September sittings, I realise that there are differing views on the subject. I want to share with the House some of the discussions I had when I was shadow Deputy Leader of the House to the late Eric Forth, who delegated to me all the responsibility for dealing with the then Leader of the House on that issue; the Leader of the House at that time was the late Robin Cook. Although in debate he obviously made the point about holding the Government to account, Robin Cook's main concernin fact, it was an irritant with himwas that every year the press had the headline, MPs away on a three-month holiday. His argument to me was that, if we had a system where we came back for two weeks, and the recess after that time was a constituency and conference recess, the press would not be able to say that MPs had gone away for three months' holiday. Judged by that aspect of it, the experiment has been a total failure because, in the years when we had September sittings, we still had the headline, MPs have gone on a three-month holiday.

Malcolm Bruce: I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but does not he think that we should not be concerned about that just because of what the press say? Many of us take the view that it is unacceptable that the House is away for 11 weeks and not calling the Government to account.

Greg Knight: That is a fair view. I said at the outset that there are differing opinions on the matter. Having served in a Government Whips Office, I just feel that, for the business managers, it is difficult to get substantial business marshalled for a period when the House is sitting for only two weeks. One has to find out where Ministers are and then discuss with the Opposition where the shadow Ministers are. I was rather of the view on the occasions when we sat in September that, for most of the time, considering the business we were dealing with, it was like treading water.
	It is not cost-effective to bring the House back for two weeks and for us to go away again. Many hon. MembersI am not one of themlike to go abroad on fact-finding visits, which they can undertake only in the recess. They found the September sittings disruptive from that point of view.

Ann Coffey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the additional difficulty in respect of finding substantive business may be that the other place does not sit in September?

Greg Knight: I would not have thought that that was a particular problem, but I know that business managers on the Government side had extreme difficulty in bringing forward matters that the House would regard as substantial during that two-week period.

Nicholas Winterton: May I raise a matter that has just been touched on and that is the need for Members of Parliament to have bilateral contact with and bilateral visits to countries throughout the world? It is an important part of Parliament's duty to be in touch with countries throughout the world. The work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the British-American Parliamentary Group is very important. The Whips in this House are less and less prepared to allow people to go abroad unless there is total parity between the political parties. That makes the work of those groups increasingly difficult. Is that not something that should be taken into account when we consider September sittings? A great many of those visits take place in September.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Business managers on the Government side now have a far easier job than I had when I was in that position, because our majority went down to three and, with defections and deaths, it went down to zero. Current business managers have a certain luxury, which I envy; I never had it. My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the IPU is allowed to continue because of the benefits of contact with politicians and parliamentarians around the globe.

John Bercow: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Leader of the House, was at best ambivalent about and perhaps, at worst, mildly resistant to the establishment of a business Committee of the House to take responsibility for programming out of the hands of the Executive and to put it into genuine parliamentary hands. Does my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), as a distinguished Chairman of the Procedure Committee, agree that we would have much greater credibility and transparency in the system if, while keeping the benefits of programming, we gave responsibility for determining its form to such a Committee, which would be outstandingly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton)?

Greg Knight: I agree with every aspect of that intervention. I think that a business Committee would be good news. I say to the Leader of the House that that issue is not going to go away. We will have to return to it, for the reasons that have been explained earlier in the debate. Therefore, I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right. I hope that the Leader of the House will be prepared to return to the issue sooner rather than later.
	I thank the Leader of the House for providing time today for us to debate a number of wide-ranging but important issues. He has shown thus far that he is willing to look at new ways of improving parliamentary scrutiny, even if that may involve some inconvenience to the Executive. If he continues in that way, he may not win a parliamentary popularity contest with his colleagues, but he will rightly have the gratitude and growing respect of the whole House.

Chris Mullin: At the outset, may I say that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the quality of scrutiny in the House has improved considerably during the past 25 years? I am anxious to see continued improvementthere is scope for further improvement.
	I wish to address just two of the motions before us: motion 6 on the communications allowance and motion 7 on September sittings. Starting with the communications allowance, I do not welcome that. On the contrary, I am wholly opposed. I believe that it is a misuse of public money and I intend to vote against it. Some of our discussion earlier this evening has confused two issues. There are legitimate constituency issues, some of which do require quite large-scale mailings. I have no problem with that.
	The other issue is the recent growth in thinly disguised party propaganda paid for out of the public purse, which I am wholly against. As I see it, the purpose of the proposed allowance is to legitimise a practice whereby Members increasingly spend public money, which is rightly made available to us to provide a service for our constituents, on what amounts to vanity publishing for the purposes that I described. It consists usually of unsolicited glossy brochures, often in party colours, advertising the good works of the Member concerned, who acts as a sort of fairy godmother to his or her constituents. As I mentioned, I have seen examples that contain 16 or even 20 photographs of the Member concerned. The brochures are often indistinguishable from party political propaganda, except that, if the Members concerned are sensibleand not all of them have beenthey take care not to mention their party or to criticise their opponents. They are not only printed but, often, distributed at public expense. We need only consider the huge discrepancies in Members' spending on postage to recognise that there is a rabbit away somewhere. I read recently that one Member would have to be sending out 680 letters a day to justify his postage bill. It is hard to see how that could be justified.
	Some such brochures sail very close to the wind. I sit on the Standards and Privileges Committee, which receives a steady trickle of complaints, often from other Members but sometimes from members of the public, alleging abuses of the postage and incidental expenditure allowance. Were I a candidate for Parliament running against an incumbent who was using public funds to publish and distribute what looks to most people like campaign literature, I would be mightily upset. It is only a question of time before the practice is challenged in the courts.

Martin Salter: Does not my hon. Friend accept that the communications allowance, coupled with the impending cap on the hitherto uncapped free postage-paid stationery at our disposal, will mean that a substantial number of the high spenders will have their practices limited? That includes Members on both sides of the House.

Chris Mullin: I certainly agree that it includes Members on both sides of the House. Whether it results in a serious reduction in the practice, however, remains to be seen. My view is that the practice needs to be stopped, not legitimised, and that allowances should be used for legitimate purposes. I can see a case, for example, for permitting the distribution of a card or leaflet advertising the name of the MP and details of how he or she can be contacted, but no more. I shall vote against the proposal, and I encourage anyone who is concerned about the reputation of Parliament to do likewise.
	With regard to September sittings, I support them, and am in favour of retaining them. I therefore support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I am not wedded to any particular days in September, but I just cannot accept, as other Members have said, that it is right for the House to award the Government a three-month holiday from scrutiny. I recognise that all of us have things to do in our constituencies when the House is not sitting, but let us remember that we are only talking about sitting for eight days in September, in the second and third weeks of the month; we are not talking about sitting for the whole of September.
	I note that many of those who are not keen on sitting for eight days in September regard themselves as modernisers. I am a moderniser, too, but I am puzzled that so many of those who describe themselves as modernisers are wedded to recesses of almost Gladstonian proportions. I am told that there is little enthusiasm for September sittings. Well, there was once. As recently as 29 October 2002, the House voted, as has already been pointed out, by a margin of 411 to 47 for September sittings. I suspect that many Members have forgotten that they voted for September sittings, and I shall watch with interest as they file sheepishly into the Aye Lobby today in support of the motion that will do away with them.
	We are not talking about sitting for longer. As our late friend Robin Cook said when he introduced his reforms, the proposal was part of a deal:
	The deal is that the House will rise two weeks earlier in July, which will be for the convenience of those Members with children at schools that go back in August. In return, Members will be expected to come back for two weeks in September.[ Official Report, 29 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 693.]
	The House voted enthusiastically for that deal. Our late colleague Eric Forth, then shadow Leader of the House, I believe, complained that we would only be returning for two weeks rather than three.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and seeking fully to justify what he supports and does not support. Will he clarify whether, when we had September sittings, the House rose a fortnight earlier in July? If my memory serves me correctly, it did not, and that was part of the problem. If it had risen a fortnight in advance, it would have been helpful for Members with children at school.

Chris Mullin: My recollection is that the House did rise early in that way once, but, as with many aspects of Robin Cook's proposals, that started rapidly to erode.
	The House voted enthusiastically for that deal, so it is not a question of a small group of zealots trying to impose on the majority of the House our way of doings things. We are merely asking that we stick to what we agreed, or at least to something closely resembling it. Almost immediately, however, it was apparent that there was little enthusiasm for the new arrangement, either at the highest levels of Governmentwith the sole exception of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Houseor among the establishment of the House. We sat in September 2003 and 2004, but last year we were told that we could not sit because a new security screen had to be erected in the Public Gallery and, blow me down, the work could only be carried out in the first half of September. I asked at the time for a guarantee that once the screen was up we would be allowed to resume the practice to which we had previously agreed, and I have to say that the answers from the Minister concerned were opaque. I was not in the least surprised to discover that we could not sit in the autumn of 2006.

David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when we did sit in September it seemed somehow impossible to timetable the necessary maintenance works to coincide with the sitting of the House, so that it was in a poor state of repair? I am sure that that was not an attempt to sabotage the proposals, but it was not conducive to good parliamentary business.

Chris Mullin: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am at least grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we have not been allowed to renege quietly on the deal and, if it has to be reneged upon, it will be done

John Bercow: Noisily.

Chris Mullin: I prefer the word publicly.
	Whatever the current degree of enthusiasm for September sittings in the House, I am in no doubt that there is great enthusiasm for them among our constituents, many of whom firmly believe, despite our protestations to the contrary, that when the House is not sitting we are all sunning ourselves in the south of France. We all know that that is not true, but the best way to knock the myth firmly on the head is for the House to sit and for us to be seen to be doing the job for which we are primarily paid.
	I am aware that September traditionally provides us with an opportunity to carry out many engagements that we might not otherwise have time for during the rest of the year. However, I repeat that we are talking about only eight days in September. Moreover, the House sits for only a little over half the year. Assuming that we do not regard the remaining half of the year as holiday, we can surely adjust our constituency engagements to allow for sitting eight days in September.
	I have seen the answer supplied to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who speaks on behalf of the Commission, setting out the likely impact on the maintenance programme. All I would say is that it cannot be beyond the wit of those concerned to organise the works programme to fit in with September sittings, especially if they have plenty of notice.
	The amendment is part of a wider struggle against the erosion of the esteem in which Parliament is held. To some extent, we have only ourselves to blame for that erosion. It always puzzles me that we fight hard to get into this place, but having got here, many of us cannot wait to get home again. Last Thursday, we discussed the White Paper published by the Department for International Development, and the Opposition spokesman actually complained that the Government were holding the debate at a time when many hon. Members could not be presentthat was a Thursday afternoon, for goodness' sake. How can we expect the public to take Parliament seriously if we do not?

John Bercow: I did not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) or my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) make that observation. The gravamen of the criticism of the timetabling of that debate was not that it was on a Thursday afternoon, but that it was going to be so incredibly short for such important matters.

Chris Mullin: If that is so, I stand corrected, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that many hon. Members seem to find Thursday afternoons an inconvenient time to do business here.
	If we care about how we and Parliament are regarded, the solution is in our own hands. We have an opportunity this afternoon to demonstrate that we do care about how we are regarded outside this place. I therefore urge the House to put an end to the practice of vanity publishingit has grown up only in the past few years and needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets totally out of controland to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North on September sittings.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He carried me with him for half of his arguments. One of the motions before us relates to short speeches, but we are not doing frightfully well on that score this afternoon. I propose to bring down sharply the average length of speeches in this debate.
	When the Leader of the House opened the debate some three hours ago, he painted a rosy picture of parliamentary reform since 1997. He rightly said that there have been some improvementsincluding Westminster Hall and the Prime Minister's appearance before the Liaison Committee. Had the Leader of the House's speech been even longer, I am sure that he would have recognised the items to be put in the scale on the other side. For example, there is a widespread view that Parliament is increasingly bypassed. Ministerial announcements are made outside the Chamber. We had the fiasco of the Robin Cook reforms to the Select Committees being voted down. We have seen a loss of flexibility in Standing Committees because of the automatic programming of Bills. We have more and more Government amendments. The House of Lords has to put right legislation that we have not had time to put right hereand we have had the shambles of House of Lords reform. Whether we are better able to hold the Executive to account is a more balanced question than the Leader of the House implied when he opened the debate.
	On September sittings, I do not mind sitting in September, but I do not want to come back then and sit for two weeks. The Leader of the House suggested an eminently sensible way forwardthat we do not deal with this question in an ad hoc way, but take a more holistic view of how and when we sit. We could then revisit the question of whether to sit in September against the background of that debate.
	I want to speak briefly to motion 6, which invites us to endorse the principle of establishing from 1 April next year a separate allowance to help us to communicate with constituents about parliamentary business. It also instructs the Members Estimate Committee to prepare a detailed proposal for such an allowance. Motion 6 differs from the others in that no explanatory memorandum is associated with it, nor any Select Committee report that sheds light on the case that it makes.
	I recognise that there is always a balance to be struck between the need for prudence with public expendituresomething that has not been mentioned in the debate as much as it should have beenand the imperative of bridging the gap between elected and elector that could undermine Parliament's legitimacy. We should never forget that one reason why we are all here is to keep a watch on what happens to our constituents' taxes. We need to be doubly careful when, as is the case with motion 6, hon. Members rather than the Executive are the conduit through which the taxes pass. We must also recognise that the House's reputation is involved when it votes increased allowances for itself.
	We discuss motion 6 in something of a vacuum as we do not know what it will cost. It need not cost anything, but the Leader of the House's response to an intervention suggested that the motion will have an associated cost. Nor is it clear how the motion relates to the work on fixing our allowance in which the Senior Salaries Review Body is presently engaged. Will the SSRB be asked to contribute to the work mentioned in the motion, or does the motion, in effect, pre-empt one aspect of the board's work?
	If the proposed allowance is approved, it should replace rather than supplement the two existing IEP funding regimesone of them for free stationery and postage, and the other for funding stationery and postage, parliamentary newsletters and similar publications, and websites. If those hopes were fulfilled, there would be consequential implications for the scope and level of the residual IEP allowance. However, if the proposed allowance is to be introduced not at nil net cost, but as a way of providing additional headroom for expenditure, I have not heard a compelling case so far today in support of the House voting in favour of providing up to 6 million in increased public expenditure.
	The current regime has featured in recent cases considered by the Standards and Privileges Committee. Like the one chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), my Committee does not travel far: since I have been Chairman, I do not think that we have ever ventured beyond Committee Room 13. The Committee has found significant shortcomings in the regime for free stationery and postage and in the IEP regime. Our concern about those shortcomings, which affect all parties in the House, is shared by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
	The cases at the heart of the Committee's ninth and 12th reports highlighted some of the weaknesses and ambiguities in the existing rules for postage and stationery. In our ninth report, we supported the replacement of the current arrangements by a single unified stationery and postage regime, governed by one clear set of rules. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) noted that it was somewhat farcical that one cannot claim back money from the IEP in respect of a House of Commons envelope, but that one can do so when one bought a postage stamp and put in on a plain envelope.
	The Committee considered that the introduction of a unified regime would benefit both hon. Members and the wider public's confidence in the system. We also said that we would work with the House of Commons Commission and the Administration Committee, as appropriate, to ensure that the rules surrounding such a regime, whatever form it ultimately took, were clear and capable of effective enforcement.
	The question of the scope of material that properly could be included in an IEP-funded publication has also concerned the Committee, and was dealt with in our ninth report. That report found that there were considerable differences of interpretation, to put the matter tactfully, among Members of Parliament about where the boundary lay between legitimate parliamentary activity, which can be funded out of the IEP, and party political and campaigning activity, which cannot. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South about the incumbency factor that we are building into the allowances.
	The Committee commented that those significant differences of view among hon. Members represented a very unsatisfactory position from the perspective of those who have to enforce the rules, and that they needed to be addressed. We said that we would look further at the general matter of publications funded from the IEP and determine whether there was scope for a tighter definition of permissible expenditure.
	If the House agrees the motion, the Members Estimate Committee will, in effect, be given the task of making proposals for a communication allowance and will have to address the shortcomings to which I have just referred and which we planned to examine. I do not envy the Committee its task of dealing with the various interpretations of what exactly constitutes parliamentary business. As someone who, along with the hon. Members for Sunderland, South and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), will have to enforce the rules if a new communications allowance is introduced, I stand ready to assist the Members Estimate Committee in drawing up clear, readily understood rules for the new allowance, which are capable of effective enforcement. That is in the common interest of Members and those responsible for enforcing the rules; it is also in the wider public interest.
	Finally, if the communication allowance were to be introduced on a nil net cost basis I would support it, because it would bring in a cap, which we do not have at present, for postage and stationery. If, however, there were to be a net cost to the taxpayeras seems likelyI would oppose it. I am not persuaded that the case has been made. At a time when public services are under pressurefor example, today there is a rally on behalf of those concerned about difficult decisions in the NHSI do not believe that the case for higher expenditure to support that particular aspect of our activity has been made.

Andrew Dismore: I particularly want to refer to the communications allowance, as I have been named three times directly in the debate and once obliquely, based on my expenditure on stamps. My response to that is that I would rather be No. 1 than at the bottomat No. 640, or whatever it is. My position reveals that I have been trying to do my best to keep my constituents informed about what is going on. It is a matter of pride to me to be at the top rather than the bottom of the list. Indeed, I would question what some of those at the bottom are doing to earn their wagesa point that has already been made in the debate.
	What exactly is the problem we are trying to address? Ours must be the only job in the world where high productivity is seen as something to be criticised rather than praised, as would happen in the real world outside. There is a generational issue: Members who have arrived here since 1997, on both sides of the House, take a different attitude to the job from those who have been here longer. Those of us elected in 1997 and subsequently have more of a constituency focus in our work; we are much more alive to the need to try to keep our constituents aware of what is going onnot just what we have been doing, but what is going on in the House and also in our communities. They often cannot find such information anywhere else. Local newspapers tend to be relatively superficial because they have limited column inches, and the approach of the national press to the issues can only be described as generic.
	I am satisfied that I perfectly comply with the rules. If I did not, there would be many complaints. I go out of my way to inform my constituents about what is going on, in a non-party political way. I put out material on my website and I try to encourage people to use e-mail whenever possible. I defy anybody to find a party political slantthe accusation that has been levelled at mein any of that material. Even if I had sent out letters in the numbers talked about in the press, it averages out at rather less than one letter per resident in my constituency, which contains 110,000 people.
	Other people have sent out annual reports under the IEP. I do not do that. They may have communicated with every person in their community more than once. I do not do that. I respond, in detail, to requests for information that people cannot find anywhere else. I do not use the IEP fund for that. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised the important point that the IEP does not go as far in London as in other parts of the country. In fact, most of mine goes on the rent for the hovel we call homemy constituency office. I do not have excess money to spend on leaflets and the vanity publishing to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) referred; I just want to make sure that my constituents are among the best informed in the country about what is actually happening in their communities.
	That does not mean just writing to people, but going around, as I do, knocking on doors every Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning or on weekday evenings in Septembera point to which I shall return. It means having tea parties that people can attend to meet me, constituency surgeries, street stalls and visiting council estates regularly to listen to complaints and take them up, all of which generate a significant amount of work, as do the petitions that I receive almost daily. Constituents in Hendon like writing letters and signing petitions.
	I can illustrate my point by quoting some of the letters that I have received. Since I knew that we were going to conduct this debatethere were rumblings for several monthsI started to ask constituents, whenever I wrote to them, whether they would let me have their e-mail address if they had one and to warn them that there might be restrictions on the amount of correspondence that we could send. I have received a huge sheaf of letters, but I shall refer only to one or two.
	Mr. Morris said:
	We very much appreciate these reports... We read frequent reports of the drop in the turn-out at elections and the fall in public interest in political matters.
	He continued by saying that
	to reduce the budget of MPs' correspondence with their constituents - which will save a trivial amount of money compared with the wastefulness and mismanagement of... other public expenditure shows a remarkable degree of stupidity. The 'House of Commons authorities' must be mad! Please pass this letter to them.

Charles Walker: Yours sincerely, Mr. Dismore.

Andrew Dismore: No, it is signed by Mr. Michael Morris of The Rise, NW7.
	How much are we talking about? If we are talking about allowances of about 10,000, only 20 Members have spent more. The total cost of that excess is just more than 100,000, and I suspect that if we introduce the allowance it will cost rather more than the 100,000 that might be saved. If we put that against some of the waste mismanagement to which Mr. Morris referred400,000 spent on a covered walkway in the yard downstairs, for examplethat would have paid for four years' worth of envelopes for everyone who has been criticised for using rather more allowance than they should.
	Other constituents wrote to me. A gentleman from Burnt Oak wrote that
	it disappoints me to hear that your budget to keep constituents informed by post may be cut. I do not possess an email facility and bearing in mind the vast sums of public money that are wasted this seems to be a miserly posture by the House of Commons.
	I received a raft of letters from satisfied constituents. For example, one wrote:
	Such a comprehensive report is to be commended and is much appreciated.
	That was a report on transport and traffic that I compiled for my constituent. Another constituent from Colindale said that she
	much appreciated being kept up to date
	on matters of great interest. A constituent from Edgware said:
	We appreciate all the communication we receive from you, and feel that you are the only MP that seems to genuinely care
	about what is going on.

Martin Salter: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and not least for sparing the House from hearing any more about the people of Edgware. Does he accept that if we vote for the communications allowance, his activities are likely to be curtailed substantially? Is it not the case that the real scandal is not what we spend on serving our constituents, but the number of MPs who are happy to draw the full parliamentary salary on top of outside income earned elsewhere?

Andrew Dismore: I am not sure about the last point, but the allowance certainly will curtail my activities and my constituents will not appreciate it.
	Several constituents have written to tell me that they do not have e-mail and pensioners in particular will be discriminated against if I can communicate only through that means. A lady from Edgware wrote:
	I really do appreciate your letters and they are certainly passed on to quite a few people.
	That particular constituent did not have e-mail and wanted me to continue by post. A pensioner from Colindale said that she did not have e-mail or computers. A pensioner from Southbourne crescent wrote:
	Thank you for the letter that is so informative about the new health proposals.
	My correspondence put her mind at rest about her concerns. She does not have e-mail and wanted me to continue to write to her.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Dismore: I believe that the hon. Gentleman's mother is one of my constituents.

John Bercow: Yes, my mother is one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and he has helped her on a number of occasions, so she can happily be spared the privilege of a visit from him on a Sunday morning outside her home. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is a reasonable surmise on my part to suggest that, following this debate, each and every one of the people to whom he just referred will have popping through the letter box very soon a copy of the  Official Report of today's proceedings.

Andrew Dismore: Those who have communicated by e-mail will get a copy but I am not sure about the others. Some constituents have even offered to pay for me to communicate with them. A lady from Mill Hill writes:
	I should be willing to pay a subscription towards the cost: I have no e-mail address.

John Bercow: There is something funny in the water supply in Hendon.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman grew up there so perhaps he could tell us.
	Another lady wrote:
	I would be happy to consider making regular payments to cover the costs of continued mailing.
	Even an active Conservative party member sent me a book of stamps to ensure that I continued to send her my letters.

Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. He is making a case for himself as the most outstanding Member of Parliament in the House. What was the percentage turnout in his constituency at the last election?

Andrew Dismore: I believe that it was about 60 per cent., which is good for London. However, that is not the point. It is not about party political campaigning, as has been alleged, but doing the job right and keeping people informed.
	I shall quote from one more letter and I hope that hon. Members will listen. It states:
	It is with great sadness that I have to tell you that my father... passed away.
	I have spent the last few days going through his paper work and files and came across a file marked 'Dismore'.
	I always knew my father took a great deal of interest in charitable affairs, it was not though until I glanced through this file that it became clear what a compulsive letter writer he was to you about not only things close to his heart but of numerous local and international affairs.
	What was so nice was that you in turn always took the time to answer not only his letters but to keep him informed of previous questions he had asked.
	For that I thank you.
	That is from a bereaved constituent.

Theresa May: I, too, have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments. Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), will the hon. Gentleman explain how that productivity, which he claims is so important and can encourage turnout at elections, led in Hendon to a turnout of 58.3 per cent., when in Maidenhead the turnout was 73.3 per cent.?

Andrew Dismore: In London, turnout is traditionally lower because we have a much higher turnover on the electoral register. I regret to say that Conservative-controlled Barnet council does an appalling job on electoral registration and in keeping the register up to date. That has been well documented.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members of the motions that we are discussing.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	My main concern about the communications budget is whether it creates more problems than it solves. I am worried that if we cannot use the envelopes, some of my constituents will be disfranchised, especially the elderly who do not have access to other means of communication. I am also worried about what will happen towards the end of the year when we come to the end of a budget and a major issue arises. For example, faith schools arose last week. My constituency has the largest Jewish population of any constituency in the country and my constituents were not enamoured of what was happening. It happens to have the smallest Christian population of any constituency in the country, although last week it seemed as though all my constituents were Catholic. I faced a tsunami of correspondence from my constituents, Jewish and Catholic, protesting against the proposals. If that happened at the end of the financial year and I could not respond to them, I do not believe that they would be happy about it.

Robert Walter: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's account of the volume of his correspondence. Does he individually sign all the letters? How much time does he spend every day doing that?

Andrew Dismore: Sometimes I do and sometimes I do not. On Monday, I signed 350 letters and it took me an hour. I have a fast signature.
	I hope that we will be given some examples of how to overcome the problem of the budget at the end of the year. I am worried that the proposals will cost more than they do now. If people use generic vanity publishing as a method of communication, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South suggested, there will be a lack of the sort of detail that I can provide to constituents now.
	My other concern is the lack of a level playing field in relation to councillors. My constituency has a Conservative council. Some six weeks before the last election, the leader of the council wrote a letter to everyone on a council estate that was undergoing regeneration attacking my position on the regeneration scheme. I was not allowed to answer those attacks, because that communication would have been unsolicited. It cannot be fair or right that we are subject to more controls than the councillors in our areas.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that this question relates not only to councillors' and council leaders' access to mailings but to the glossy magazines produced by some councils, irrespective of their political persuasion, the cost of which makes our proposals today seem quite trifling?

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend is right. When I was leader of the Labour group on Westminster city council 10 or 12 years ago, the then leader, Lady Porter, had a communications budget of more than 1 million for sending out glossy leaflets. Judging by what hon. Members with London homes in Westminster see coming through their letterboxes, I suspect that even more are now being sent out, at an even higher budget. I am very concerned about that.
	The same problems apply to Scottish and Welsh Members because MSPs and AMs are not subject to any restrictions. Countries such as France have no restrictions either. Other parts of the world are much better at recognising that part of a Member of Parliament's job is to communicate effectively with their constituents. Whether the communications allowance will provide a solution remains to be seen when the details are worked out. Obviously, it will depend on how much it is. I shall certainly not use it for glossy leaflets; I shall want to buy stamps with it. I hope that we shall be able to introduce some common-sense rules. I agree with the point made by other hon. Members that the present rules are unclear.
	I also hope that we shall be able to carry out surveys on important issues. The only time that I have had a complaint against me sustained was when, a few years ago, Transport for London wanted to widen the north circular road. It held a consultation, which had a very short shelf life, but we then found all its consultation leaflets dumped in a skip. On that occasion, I felt justified in writing to my constituents who were directly affected to ascertain their views. A Liberal Democrat councillor objected to that and I had to pay the postage costs. I made no objection to doing that, however. I felt that it had been the right thing to doit is the kind of thing that we should be allowed to do, whether using the communications allowance or by some other meansto ensure that those constituents' views were heard in time, given that the official consultation had gone so pear-shaped. The answer to hon. Members on both sides of the House who do not want a communications allowance is that they do not need to claim it if they do not want to use it. However, those of us who do like to communicate with our constituents should be permitted to do so.
	I do not favour September sittings. September is an important time for us to communicate with and meet our constituents. It is also a good time to visit schools. The rest of the time that we are in recess, schools tend to be on holiday or half-term holiday, which makes it difficult for us to visit them. Once they have settled down after the start of term in September, it is a good time to visit them to see whether there are any problems that they would like us to take up.
	Also, the evenings are still light in September. Those hon. Members who, like me, wish to call on their constituents can do so for a couple of hours on a weekday evening during September, but that is not a practical proposition in November, for example.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give the House an indication of how long it would take him to get from Westminster to his constituency to discuss any urgent issues that might arise during parliamentary time?

Andrew Dismore: The short answer is that, bearing in mind the hours that the House sits, I would not get back to my constituency in time to do anything useful in the evening. That is one of the problems that London Members face as a result of having sittings during term time, as we do now. The only day on which there is a possibility of getting back in time is Thursday.
	It is important that we keep in contact with our constituents in both ways. I write letters in response to requests for information from constituents, and I think that that is the right thing to do.

John Maples: That is the most extraordinary speech that I have heard in the House. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) protests far too much. What appears to be the wholesale abuse of the postage allowance by some Members is wrong. I have been here for some time, and my understandingperhaps it is incorrecthas always been that we are not allowed to use the franked postage system to send out circulars. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said that he had worked out that the hon. Member for Hendon was sending out 600 letters a day

Chris Mullin: I did not name him, though.

John Maples: Well, the hon. Gentleman worked out that people who were spending 25,000 a year on postage were sending out 600 letters a day. I cannot believe that all those letters were individually signed, and if they were not, they were circulars. It is expenses more than anything else that brings us into public disrepute, which is a reason why the communications allowance should be stopped quickly. The only comfort that I can take from the situationI say this to the hon. Member for Hendonis that there is considerable statistical evidence showing that such local efforts make absolutely no difference to the election result whatsoever because the seat experiences the national swing.
	I had planned to speak about the sub judice rule, but since I have had to sit through three and a half hours of a somewhat Alice in Wonderland debate about all sorts of introspective issues, I thought that I would chuck some of my prejudices in as well. There is an illusion, or perhaps a delusion, that what we do is hold the Government to account and that if we were here more often, we would do it better. If we were serious about holding the Government to account, we would do two things that are never on the agenda at all. First, there should be a rule in Erskine May that Ministers have to give proper answers to written questions, which they do not at the moment. Secondly, Select Committees should have the power of their own volition to summon particular officials and ask to see particular documents. A Select Committee cannot do that at the moment because it has to go to the House for a resolution, which it never gets because the Government whip their troops against it.
	We do not have the power to hold the Government to account. We have the power to drag Ministers down here every so often and make them listen to the moans of Back Benchers, but that is not holding the Government to account. We had the opportunity to do that yesterday and we saw what happened. Holding Ministers to account is not to do with September sittings or how much of our allowances we spend on our staff, but proper answers to parliamentary questions and proper powers for Select Committees.

John Bercow: I realise that my hon. Friend has moved on from this matter, but in light of the importance of his earlier remarks, I have checked the record. He is absolutely right about the relatively ineffectual consequence of large-scale expenditure, because the share of the vote of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) fell by 8.1 per cent. at the past general election.

John Maples: I expect that the hon. Member for Hendon will deduce from that that he ought to be sending out 2,600 letters a day.

Andrew Dismore: That makes the point that I am putting forward: I am not doing this for party political or personal political advantage, but because I think that keeping constituents informed is the right thing to do.

John Maples: The hon. Gentleman tempts me again. He said earlier that he thought that the amount that people spent depended on their generation in Parliament and that those who were elected relatively recently, such as him, spent more than those who came in a long time ago, such as me. I suspect that the correlation is with the marginality of people's seats and that it has nothing to do with how long they have been here.
	I am all in favour of short speechesI shall try to follow that today, as I always dobut any rule must also apply to Front Benchers if we are to be serious about short speeches. Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen are the worst abusers of the system. They always seem to feel that they must speak for as long as the Secretary of State did. We heard a rambling 25-minute speech from the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman today, although he could have covered the territory in 10 minutes. We heard a 35-minute speech from the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman yesterday, although he could have covered the territory in 20 minutes. The shadow Foreign Secretary spoke for 20 minutes yesterday, but the Liberal spokesman felt that he had to speak for 35 minutes. I suggest that Front-Bench spokesmen should be limited to 20 minutes, plus interventions.

Jack Straw: I am always happy to stick to that. My speech would have taken less than 20 minutes, but it lasted for 47 minutes because I took interventions. The problem for someone like mepeople have credited me with taking care with the Houseis always deciding whether to give way. I prefer to give way because interventions are an important way of holding Ministers to account. However, time and again, if one gives way, a 20-minute speech turns into a 40-minute speech, so one is criticised for taking too much time. I should add that many Back Benchers find it convenient to intervene during a Minister's speech so that they can get themselves in the local paper and, having done so, then push off to the Tea Room.

John Maples: I appreciate that point, which was why I said that the limit should be 20 minutes, plus interventions. However, there must be some self-denying ordinance on Front-Bench spokesmen. They make speeches about how Back Benchers should have more time, but then occupy the time themselves. If Back Benchers are to be restricted to three, five, or eight minutes, Front-Bench spokesmen should also be restricted.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Maples: No, I want to move on[Hon. Members: Give way!] The hon. Gentleman will get to make his own speech.

Malcolm Bruce: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is entirely for the Member on his feet to choose whether to give way.

Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) accused the Liberal Democrat spokesman yesterday of speaking for 35 minutes. He actually spoke for 19 minutes and took five interventions, so the hon. Gentleman should correct the record.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has corrected the record by making that statement.

John Maples: I will check the record. I was present, and I seem to remember the speech going on for much longer than that.
	I wanted to speak about the sub judice rule, which is a highly technical piece of parliamentary procedure that I had not come across until I ran into it about two years ago. The case is no longer sub judice so I can mention it. The Foreign Affairs Committee heard evidence from two people who had been arrested and, they allege, tortured in Saudi Arabia. They were held in jail for nearly three years. As a former Foreign Secretary, the Leader of the House is well aware of the case. We wanted to cover that evidence in our report, but two other people who had been arrested at the same time in Saudi Arabia brought a civil action against the Saudi Arabian Government in the British courts. That case dragged on for two years. It has only just finished because it went to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
	We were told by the Clerks Office that under the sub judice rule we could not refer to the two people who had given us evidence that they were tortured in Saudi Arabia, because there was a parallel case going on in a British court on similar facts that arose at a similar time out of similar incidents. That is far too wide a definition of the sub judice rule to be acceptable to us in carrying out our duties.
	We were compiling a report on the human rights records of other countries. Saudi Arabia is a country that we look at consistently because it has a very bad record on torture, but we were unable to say in our report that two British citizens alleged that they had been tortured in Saudi Arabia and gave us direct evidence of that, because there was a parallel civil action going on which related to the same facts.
	In that civil action the Government briefed leading counsel to take partI am not sure in what capacity, whether as an intervenor or as an amicus curiae. I sought to ask in a written question whether the Government had done that and, if so, what the cost was. I was barred again by the sub judice rule from asking that question for nearly two years. That is wrong, too.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who was the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, said that there are good reasons why we in the House should not attempt to have debates and come to conclusions on matters which it is for the courts to decide, and I accept that.

Sally Keeble: rose

John Maples: I shall give way in a moment, as I know that the hon. Lady has been involved in the matter as well.
	If we had sought in our report to say that the people who had brought the action against Saudi Arabia were right, I can see that that would be treading on the judiciary's turf. We do not want the judiciary on our turf, so in general we should stay off its turf. But that must be done around the narrow definition of what the case is about and whether we, as Parliament, are seeking to pass judgment or whether individual Members speaking in this place are seeking to come to a conclusion which it is the rightful business of the courts to do.
	The rule needs to be much narrower. I am not satisfied that either of the Procedure Committee's reports and their reference to the Speaker's discretion, which I shall come to, are enough to address the problem.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye later in the debate but in case I am not successful, may I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks? I agree that the proposals are not satisfactory.

John Maples: The case in which the hon. Lady was involved has been mentioned in the debate and she may wish to check what was said. I am grateful for her support.
	I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has left. I have discovered that the sub judice rule does not apply to cases once they have been taken to the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice. I am sure he would be happy and relieved to know that.
	It is right that we should not seek to influence a court in its decision, but there is a distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. If a criminal case is brought against somebody, members of the public might end up being on the jury and might hear and be influenced by what had been said in debate in Parliament. Civil cases are heard by judges sitting alone, except in a few libel trials, and it is inconceivable that a High Court judge in a civil case would be influenced by what I said in a question to the former Foreign Secretary or by what a Select Committee might have said in a report. The judge will come to his conclusions and his judgment on the basis of what he hears in that court and the representations made to him.
	It is wrong that the rule should apply in the same way to civil courts as it does to criminal courts. The rule should draw that distinction. Also, the rule should be restricted to the subject matter of the case, and should not apply to peripheral issues that people want to raise around it which are in some tangential way related to it.

Robert Smith: When the Procedure Committee looked into the subjectthe Chairman of the Committee made this point earlierit considered not just the risk of influence, but the need to ensure the appearance of due separation and comity between Parliament and the law. There are two parties to any civil case, and the losing party should not feel aggrieved because they feel that their case has been interfered with by Parliament. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and I may well expect judges to be above allowing their judgment on a case to be interfered with by the House, but the House must be seen not to interfere in the case.

John Maples: I thought that I had already said that I can see two reasons for the sub judice rule. First, it avoids us appearing to prejudice a court's decision, and, secondly, it prevents us from getting on to the courts' turf at all.
	The comity pointthe obligation not to comment on things that are rightfully the business of a court while proceedings are under wayshould be more narrowly defined, and it should centre on the substance of the case. To take the example of our Select Committee report, if the people who brought the case had given evidence to us, and then sued the Saudi Arabian Government, it would have been wrong of us to publish the evidence and to say, What happened to you is absolutely outrageous. However, I do not see why we should be prevented from publishing evidence given to us by people other than those involved about another series of events. Equally, I do not see why I should not ask the Government how much it cost to brief the counsel who is looking after the interests of those involved in the case. All that I am saying is that the dividing line is drawn much too far away from the court's procedures, and much too far into our territory. When a case goes on for two years, as did the case to which I referred, it is very difficult for Members of Parliament to carry out their jobs.
	Two Procedure Committee reports have been produced on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield considered the matter when he was Chairman of the Committee a couple of years ago, and the Committee concluded that,
	with appropriate use of the Speaker's discretion, it does not recommend changes to the sub judice rule.
	The latest Modernisation Committee implies the same thing. It says that the perceived imbalance between how the sub judice rule applies in Parliament and outside could be addressed
	by the appropriate use of the Speaker's discretion.
	It goes on to say that the phrase national importance, which is involved in the matter of the Speaker's discretion in the sub judice resolution, should be interpreted reasonably, and not solely with reference to its 1970s origins.
	It will be interesting to learn whether the proposals work, but I suspect that they will not, and that the Speaker will find that his discretion does not go wide enough. It certainly will not go wide enough to enable the Clerks in the Table Office or on Select Committees to advise Members that they are entitled to make the inquiries that they want to make; they might err on the side of caution. That will result in Members having to take their cases directly to the Speaker, because it is the Speaker's discretion, and no one else's, that matters. The sub judice resolution of 15 November 2001 said, on the subject of discretion, that matters sub judice
	shall not be referred to,
	but then it saysand this is the crucial point on discretionthat
	where a ministerial decision is in question, or in the opinion of the Chair a case concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services, reference to the issues of the case may be made in motions
	and so on, with the Speaker's discretion. Any lawyer would agree that the phrase,
	issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services,
	restricts the definition of issues of national importance to those categories. I hope that the Procedure Committee, the Leader of the House or perhaps the Speaker himself, will look into the matter again so that we can try to redefine the Speaker's discretion in the sub judice rule, or redefine the remit of that rule by allowing different standards for civil and criminal proceedings. We should restrict it to the crux of the case that is before the courts, and not bring in peripheral matters.
	We should reconsider the wording of the provision on the Speaker's discretion, because I think that we will find that it does not go wide enough. I am seriously worried because, in the past two years, I have found myself restricted once as a Select Committee member, and once as a private Member of Parliament, from pursuing matters that could not conceivably have affected the result of a case, or have been a breach of the comity between Parliament and the courts. I have been restricted from doing so by the very narrow wording of the sub judice rule. I am disappointed that, as I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), the Procedure Committee did not think it necessary to change the wording of the resolution. I think that we will have to return to the matter.

Greg Knight: I apologise for the fact that I was not in the Chamber when my hon. Friend started his speech, although I caught some of his earlier remarks on a monitor. He raises an important issue, but would not the correct way forward be for him to seek a meeting with the Speaker on the issue, because it is the Speaker who will exercise discretion, and determine whether the scope of his discretion is adequate to deal with this particular case? Should not that be the first port of call? If there is a problem, I am happy to invite him to come before our Committee, and we will certainly consider the matter again.

John Maples: It would be inappropriate to share with the House any discussions that I have had with the Speaker, but it had occurred to me that that was my first port of call before my right hon. Friend suggested it.
	I made representations to the Procedure Committee when it was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. In fact, we discussed the issue, and he explained the reasons for the Committee's conclusions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Perhaps the proposal will work, and Members will not experience problems, but at least the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and I have been able to share with the House the fact that we have run into problems with the sub judice rule. That should not be the casewe cannot do our job properly as Members of Parliament if we encounter a rule that is subject to wide interpretation. If that interpretation continues, and the Speaker believes that it is not in his discretion to allow us to pursue such matters, the House must return to the sub judice resolution and amend it to restrict its scope and allow Members to do their job properly.

Martin Salter: I speak as an enthusiastic moderniser and a former long-standing member of the Modernisation Committee. The modernisation of our arcane and antiquated procedures was the subject of my maiden speech, which was described by Dods as brilliant, but was ignored by everyone else.
	Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I support motions 6 and 7 on the proposed communications allowance and the ending of September sittings. Like the majority of hon. Members, I supported the Cook reforms of 2002, which were a good thing. I thought that they would all work, and I was enthusiastic in organising support for them. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) will remember that we won the vote on sitting hours by seven votes, so it was a tense night in the House. Many of those reforms were successful, and we ended the absurd spectacle of our legislating in the early hours of the morning. I often wondered what would have happened if journalists interviewed hon. Members leaving the Smoking Room or the bars at 2 am. What if a microphone had been put before us and we were asked what we were voting on? I am not sure that I knew exactly what I was doing at that time of the morningperhaps it was only the Whips Office that knew.
	I accept that one of the Cook reforms did not work. Politicians do not like to admit that they were wrong, but as an enthusiastic moderniser and as a friend and supporter of Robin Cook I have absolutely no hesitation in admitting that we got it wrong on September sittings. I bought the argument, voiced by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) earlier, that the long summer recess gave the media a stick with which to beat us. It was too long a period for the Government to escape scrutiny. However if we compare Parliament with other legislatures, we can see how enthusiastic and conscientious we are. League tables are very much in vogue, and I have with me one showing that, in 2005, the US Senate sat for 159 days and the House of Representatives for 140 days; in 2004, the House of Representatives sat for 110 days, and the Senate for 133 days. In 2005, the House of Commons sat for 133 days, and for 160 days in 2004the highest number of sitting days for any legislature in the table and certainly in the western world.
	At the bottom of the league, it is worth noting the efforts, or the lack of them, expended by the German Bundesrat, which managed a princely 12 days in 2004 and 11 days in 2005. The Bundestag, which is the lower House, managed 67 and 64 days respectively. We are not top of the league, as the Leader of the House and I discussed earlier. Greek parliamentarians win the gold medal, because in 2005, they managed to sit for 248 days, and for 110 days the previous year. I do not know what happened in Greek politics between 2004 and 2005, but it took up an awful lot of parliamentary time. Without boring the House with endless figures, out of all the modern Parliaments, we not only sit for more days, but sit for longer hours, too.

Malcolm Bruce: As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has pointed out, the problem is not how long we sit, but the times of year at which we sit. If we were to sit for six months and then not sit for six months, people would protest. Is that not the point that the hon. Gentleman should address?

Martin Salter: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the start of my speech, he would know that I am addressing the way in which the media try to portray this House as a House of slackers that does not pull its weight.
	I accept that we could organise our parliamentary calendar more effectively. If education authorities move to six-week terms, we will find it difficult to enable, for example, hon. Members from Scotland to spend any time at all in the summer with their families. I am sure that the House authorities, the House of Commons Commission and Mr. Speaker will continue to wrestle with that problem. Nevertheless, this British House of Commons sits more often and for longer sittings than almost any other comparable Chamber.
	Robin Cook was wrong about what the media say about us. The principle of subcontracting how we organise the work of the British House of Commons to the editors of tabloid newspapers is very dangerous, at least until such time as we can elect the editors of British tabloid newspapers and hold them to account. We can never win that argument, so we should not even engage with it. We should do what is right with regard to the duties that we have in this place and the way in which we can best represent our constituents.
	Slightly cruelly, I took my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to task about his use of the term expenses, because we run our constituency offices with allowances. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said that the word recess is hardly known outside this place, but in tabloid world the recess is a long summer holiday. As hon. Members have said, we gained no favours with the editors of our tabloid newspapers when we came back in September.
	I will not name the newspaper concerned, because I do not read itsuffice it to say that on 15 January 1934 its front-page headline was Hurrah for the Blackshirtsbut I said to one of its journalists, If you think the recess is a holiday for Members of Parliament, I'll make you a deal. Take a week out of your family holiday and come with me to my advice surgeries, which often end at 10 o'clock at night, on the roughest and toughest estate in my constituency. Come and visit the schools; come and do the casework with me; come and pay home visits. Like most hon. Members, I carry out home visits. I continued, At the end of 50 hours or perhaps 55 hours, which is considerably fewer hours than we put in when the House is sitting, you tell me whether that is a holiday. Funnily enough, the journalist did not want to play. We must stand up for our work here and our work in our constituencies. If we concede the argument that we must come back in September for public relations reasons, we will not be doing the job that we were sent here to do.
	I do not have outside business interests or a private income; I am a full-time Member of Parliament. I do not have access to resources to top up my budget to run my constituency office. I do not receive an additional allowance for being an MP in a high-cost area such as Reading. I do not receive additional London allowances, but I have to pay London wages in order to get quality staff, which I have: Viki, Ann, Cara and Alex put in an inordinate amount of time and are not paid enough money. As a trade unionist and someone who has argued for justice in the workplace, I find it embarrassing that the allowances do not allow me to pay increments to reward loyalty. I can just about afford to give my staff an increase equal to inflation, but in many other employment scenarios, one would be able to pay increments to reward long service.
	Two years ago, when I received death threats from the British National party, I had to install security measures at my office. I got the princely sum of 1,500 towards putting in shutters and panic alarms. The restnearly 4,000I had to find from my own pocket. I am not making a big deal about it: my salary doubled when I came to work in this place, as housing associations did not pay a lot of money. Nevertheless, I have not had the resources to pay the extra money needed to do some of what I would like to do so as to do right by my staff or constituents.
	I am sure that I could go out there and get additional employment, as many Members do. Members who are going to vote against the communications allowance, which will be useful to many like me, should reflect on whether it is morally right for them to be claiming their full parliamentary allowance while raking in income from elsewhere during time in the working week that is taken away from representing their constituents and doing their duties. I have not cross-referenced the way in which Members intend to vote or what they have said with their declarations in the Register of Members' Interests, but that is a point worth putting on the record.

Bob Spink: Has the hon. Gentleman considered giving evidence to the Senior Salaries Review Body?

Martin Salter: If I do, the hon. Gentleman may find it interesting.

Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Salter: No.
	It is worth analysing what we achieved during the September sittings in 2003 and 2004. That information is provided by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who answers on behalf of the House of Commons Commission. Over the past three years, approximately 17 million was spent in each summer recess on works projects across both Houses of Parliament, about 10 million of whichsome 60 per cent.was spent in the Commons. The cost of disrupting those works has been estimated at an additional 2.5 million for both Houses, or 1.5 million in the Commons. The experiment was not without costand did we achieve that much, apart from putting through a ban on fox hunting and allowing people to invade the House of Commons while we tried to operate in a building site? In 2003, the House sat from Monday 8 September to Thursday 18 Septembera total of eight sitting days. On two of those days25 per cent. of the timethere were no Divisions. On one of thema Wednesday, when one would expect us all to be herethe maximum number of Members participating in the six Divisions that occurred was 346. That is not a great track record for the experiment of September sittings.

Andrew MacKinlay: My apologies; I wanted to be here earlier but I have been in Select Committee. My hon. Friend falls into the chasm of assuming that if Parliament sits there must be legislation and Divisions. In my view, we could hold light sittings for questions and statements in a Committee Room that did not need to be reinstated because of ongoing works. That would enable Parliament to undertake scrutiny and deliver accountability at low cost or no cost.

Martin Salter: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but unfortunately that option is not before us. As the Leader of the House knows, there is a case for a more radical look at the parliamentary year, and I hope that we will do that. The question before us today is whether we return to the September sittings envisaged in the Cook reforms, and I would say that there is a powerful case against that. I could quote similar figures for 2004, but I will not detain the House.
	Let me move on to what has occurred and has workedthat is, the ability to table parliamentary questions during what would have been this year's September sitting. I was shocked to discover that we did not have the ability to table questions for the whole two weeks; it was a restricted privilege, for some reason, and we were allowed to do it only for four or five days. Nevertheless, full credit to hon. Members who managed between them to table 733 questions relating to every Department apart from Scotland. That is a good start, and I hope that it will be replicated. In the soundings that I have taken among hon. Friends and other colleagues, there has been enthusiasm for the ability to continue to table questions, and I believe that that is the intention of the Leader of the House.
	Finally, there is the issue of what we actually get up to in September, or at any rate during the summer recess. People take their holidays at different times. Like most Members, I work through the summer recess. My surgeries continue, as do my school visits. I cannot visit schools in August, for obvious reasons, but I can visit local businesses. I also find that I can get my head around issues, as I cannot always when rushing from one meeting or engagement to another, given the fairly frenetic calendar to which we must all adhere in this place.
	There is also the work of all-party parliamentary groups. I am not one for jetting around the world, but I experienced a very enjoyable day out with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), a fellow member of the all-party angling group, when we visited Sparsholt fishery management college. It is not normally possible to find time for such activities.
	There are residents groups in my constituency. I commute back to Reading every night, and I can be back within an hour and five minutes. I can just about make an 8 pm meeting on a Thursday. Even given the luxury afforded to methe ability to do that on a Thursday night, without having to cram everything into FridayI cannot get around to visiting all the organisations that I want to visit by concentrating my activity on Fridays. I need that time. I think that many of us need that time, and many of our constituents expect to see us during that time.

Mark Lazarowicz: I respect my hon. Friend's views, but according to my understanding of the arrangement for the September sittings and the reorganisation of the parliamentary year, it did not result in either less or more time for parliamentary sittings. In fact, one of the consequences of the September sittings was that we finished earlier in July. I do not see why my hon. Friend could not engage in all those extremely important activities during the part of July made available by the September sittings. Why is September better than July for that purpose?

Martin Salter: The schools in my part of the world were on holiday during one of those weeks, which answers my hon. Friend's question fairly definitively. Moreover, I am not sure whether we were given that extra week in the second yearlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I think that it was taken away from us thenand, of course, House business has a habit of crowding in. I am talking more about the principle of September sittings.
	The subject of Members' postage and communications has exercised the Modernisation Committee for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, Southhe is not present now, but I said that I would mention thismade some rather acerbic comments. I am not surprised, because his views are known, and the figures show him to be one of the lower users of the Members' postage budget. He has been in this place for a long time and I have huge respect for him, but those who have been here for a long time should not so readily dismiss the enthusiastic and conscientious way in which many Members elected from 1992 onwards have chosen to go about their business. There is no rule book and no job description, and we must discover for ourselves how best to represent our constituents.
	My postage budget is quite low this year; it has been higher in previous years. I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). There is no direct correlation between the amount that a Member spends on postage and his or her eventual electoral result. The fact remains, however, that huge issues sometimes blow up in our constituencies. In an intervention earlier, I mentioned the closure of Ashford hospital, which affects the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). He presented a petition with 25,000 signatures; the closure was a huge issue in his constituency. Because there was no postage cap, he could legitimately write to every one of the constituents who had presented him with the petition.
	I too have carried out mass mailings to petitioners on important subjects. It all depends what is blowing up on the patch at any one time, but the fact remains that if Mr. Speaker choosesas he has the right toto impose a cap on our postage and establish a finite budget, when problems explode in constituencies, Members on both sides of the House will not have the wherewithal to do the job that they want to do in the way they want to do it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said that he accepted the case for circulation of Members' surgery cards and contact details. Hardly anyone would argue with that, but how on earth would we fund the production of surgery cards and contact details if they were to be distributed to every elector within our present budgets? As I said earlier, many of us are topping up those budgets from our own pockets.
	In June 2004, the Modernisation Committee produced a unanimous report entitled Connecting Parliament with the Public. It was informed by a questionnaire sent to all Members covering the rules relating to the use of prepaid envelopes and direct mail. As MPs cannot communicate with constituents on matters on which they themselves are statutory consulteesI have mentioned the closure of post officesnor write to their constituents on matters before Parliament, nor consult them about the implementation of legislation and its effect on their lives and communities, it is important to reflect, and to argue the case for amending the current House rules.
	Members' responses to the questionnaire circulated by the Modernisation Committee were instructive. MPs wanted a revision of the rules on unsolicited mail, particularly to inform constituents in a given area about a local issue, such as a planning matter. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to that topic, and I agree that the rules are confusing.
	Members were asked in what way MPs' ability to communicate with constituents could be improved. Some sought better facilities for e-consultations, and referred to the use of websites and further electronic media. Asked whether the incidental expenses provisionthe IEPwas sufficient to meet the needs associated with dealing with casework, Members overwhelmingly said no.
	In response to the survey, the Modernisation Committee report stated:
	Nearly half of Members thought that the rules on mailings were not sufficiently clear.
	It is important to remember that this was an all-party report. It continued:
	Circulars include the annual and Parliamentary Reports which are now produced by many Members but they can also include 'standard letters' which are in routine use by many Members, cards listing dates and locations of surgeries and other non-partisan material. It may on occasion be appropriate to distribute these items more widely, rather than only sending them in response to constituents' letters.
	It is absurd that we, as elected Members of Parliament and full-time politicianswell, most of us are full-time politiciansare more disadvantaged than elected councillors. In Battle ward in my constituency, we have a huge new Tesco development. It will radically change the Oxford road in Reading. Many local shopkeepers are worried about whether they will be put out of business, and many local residents are worried about what it will mean for traffic flows, school places and goodness knows what else. My colleague, councillor Tony Jones, can quite legitimately mail out a questionnaire to constituents of the area through the members' services of Reading borough council, but I, as their Member of Parliament, cannot do so, because that would be unsolicited mailing. However, if, in response to a councillora part-time politicianmy constituents raise a petition and write to me, I can then legitimately write back to them. We have an unclear situation, and this issue needs to be resolved.
	I believe that the rules on prohibiting campaigning, fundraising or business correspondence should be confirmed and clarified. The rules on unsolicited mail should be clarified and amended to ensure that non-partisan mailings can be undertaken by MPs, to report on their own activities and to consult with constituents on matters before the House and on the implementation of legislation passed or pertinent local issues.
	The Modernisation Committee conclusions were supported by the Hansard Society. It said:
	Voters continue to respect their local MPs and much of the effective communication of what Parliament does, especially at the local level and in the local media...The level of informed, transparent and engaged democracy that any citizen of the 21st century has a right to expect is, of necessity, comparatively expensive. Cut-price democracy will never represent much of a bargain.
	I suggest that those Members opposing the MPs communications allowance, which will have the effect of limiting the activities of some of our high spenders, are supporting a cut-price democracy.
	Finally, I hope that Members will be consistent. I do not expect Members who vote against the MPs' communications allowance in the Lobby tonight to claim it next year. It is right and proper that we are all under extensive parliamentary scrutiny: many of us will be watching.

Charles Walker: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). Not only has he given a fabulous rendition of his viewssome of which I agree with, and others I disagree withbut he has enabled me to catch my first 20 lb carp, so I have a lot of time for him.
	I am one of those dreadful Members of Parliament who communicate with their constituents via annual and bi-annual reports. I see nothing wrong with my constituents knowing what I am doing in their name. It is important for them to know that their MP is not only working in the House of Commons, but is around and about in the constituency meeting the people who matter to themthose who provide the many public and charitable services that go on in Broxbourne.
	I am also pleased to say that I have something in common with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I, too, am the hardest working Member of Parliament in my constituency. I am the only Member of Parliament for Broxbourne, but I am the hardest working one. Indeed, the same goes for all 645 of us: we are all the hardest working MPs in our constituencies.
	We cannot have a total free-for-all on allowances. In my view, our allowances are very generous. There is the office cost allowance and the staffing allowance, which together total some 108,000. Moreover, we are allowed to rob Peter to pay Paulwe can take money out of our staffing allowance and put it into the office cost allowance, for example, so there is some flexibility. I am very concerned at the idea of having limitless expenditure on postage, without any accountability.
	Perhaps one way round the problem is to take an average of all 645 MPs' postage. Such an average would include the highest and the lowest spenders, and might provide an average sum of perhaps 4,000 a year, on which most of us could operate, give or take a little less or a little more. But if we could not, we could always make up the difference from our office cost allowanceit is called managing a budget. We expect people in the public sector and in the NHS to manage a budget, so it is quite ridiculous that we MPs should not apply the same financial rigour to ourselves. I leave those thoughts on office expenditure with the House.
	I hate to mention the newspapers, because I share many of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Reading, West in that regard, but I should point out that some newspapers are referring to our getting 10,000 to 17,000 in additional money for postage. I am sure that that is wrong and I hope that it is, because if we are seen to be spending that kind of money, it will bring us into further disrepute with our constituents.
	On September sittings, I am broadly in favour of coming back earlier than we do, but I share the concerns expressed by many people. It is ridiculous to come back for two weeks in September, and then to disappear to the seaside for a week in order to attend our party conferences. If we are to come back earlier, let us do so toward the end of September, which is still two weeks earlier than coming back at the beginning of October. Of course, there is an argumentI am not sure that my view is shared by colleaguesfor having fixed Parliaments. That way, we could follow the American example and have one conference every four or five years before a general election. However, this is neither the time nor place to discuss that.
	It is important that Parliament sit for a couple of weeks longer every year in September, but I do not want to see more legislation in this place because there is far too much legislation. We need to spend more time talking about the things that matter to the people of this countryhousing, building on the green belt instead of on brownfield sites, immigration, pensions, the nuclear deterrentso that our constituents can feed their thoughts to us and we can take a considered view. So please let us have less legislation in this place and a bit more considered discussion of the things that keep our constituents awake at night.
	Finallygosh! I have taken four minutesI turn to family friendly work practices, which I know many people like. We sit till 10 o'clock on Monday and Tuesday nights but rise at 7.30 on Wednesday, which means that I am at a loose end on Wednesday evenings. I normally end up in a curry house eating things that I should not eat. Could we not use the additional two and a half hours not for whipped business, but for one-line debates, during which we could hold Ministers to account? That might provide more time for Back Benchers to have Adjournment debates and talk

Mark Lazarowicz: It has been suggested that that time on Wednesday evening could be used to deal with private Members' Bills, which are still dealt with on Fridays. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that is a good suggestion?

Charles Walker: I do. That is an excellent suggestion. A number of suggestions could be made and the House could take a view, but as I say I do not think that we should have whipped business on a Wednesday evening.
	Very finallythe last of the absolute lasts, and I am not sure that this is covered by the motions being debated todayI am concerned about the issue of seniority in this place. I am sure that, when I have been here for 20 years, if my electorate allow me to be here for that long, I will be far less concerned about seniority, because it will play to my favour, but my constituents do not care how long any Member of Parliament has been here. It makes no difference to them. I am the only Member of Parliament they have and there are too many occasions when, sitting in a short debate that may be three hours long, I look at the right hon. Gentleman over there, at the right hon. Gentleman over here and at those leading Select Committees and I realise that I do not have a cat's chance of being called. Therefore, I would like seniority perhaps to take more of a back seat, at least for the next 20 years. Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mark Lazarowicz: May I say from this corner, where the most junior Members of the Labour Benches sit, how much we agree with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)?
	There has been a lot of debate about a number of issues this afternoon. I want to say something about September sittings but first I want to draw attention to some of the other aspects of the report of the Modernisation Committee, on which I am privileged to serve. I want to highlight the fact that, if we seize opportunities offered in that report, there will be important consequences not just for the way in which we carry out business in the House but for the way we relate to the wider public, which is one of the themes that the Committee report addressed. I want specifically to refer to the proposal for Standing Committees in effect to be turned, in the normal course of matters, into evidence-taking Committees. If that is done properlyit has to be done properlyit could radically transform the way in which this place operates for the better.
	Because of the location of my constituency, obviously, I observe quite closely and read a lot in the media about the workings of the Scottish Parliament. Like all institutions, it has its good points and its bad points, but one of its good pointsthis is widely recognisedis the effective way in which its committees take evidence and have a direct impact on the legislation that comes out at the end of the consideration process. That results in better legislation. If we can get outside organisations regularly expressing their views to Members of Parliament, we will have a better chance of getting legislation changed before it becomes set in stone by the Government, or by the intricacies of the political process.
	In addition, the opportunity to have a dialogue with organisations, groups and society outside Parliament is an extremely important way of rebuilding trust between the political process and the wider community, which we all recognise we have lost to a certain degree. Therefore, the importance of the proposals for Standing Committees should not be underestimated. However, it must be recognised that we have to adopt those enthusiastically as a Chamber if we are to make the most of them. As hon. Members have pointed out, the procedures to allow us to do that have been there for many years and they have not been taken up, so it is important that, as well as agreeing the proposals today, as it appears we are likely to do, given that no one has spoken against them, we put them enthusiastically into practice and do not allow them to fall by the wayside.
	In that connection I have some reservations about the consensus that appears to have developed that it will be a member of the Chairmen's Panel who will chair the new Special Standing Committees. I say that because there must be a danger that, in some cases, the member who will be chosen to serve as the Chair of a Special Standing Committee may not have any particular expertise or interest in the subject matter of that Committee. It may be that members will adopt that interest for that Committee, choose to become heavily involved in its work and act in a proactive way, as Select Committee Chairs often do. If not, in some cases, there would be a danger that the Special Standing Committee's evidence-taking session would become ritualised and almost like a court hearing rather than a more free-flowing exchange of views between Members and outside organisations.

Malcolm Bruce: As the Chairman of a Select Committee that generally does not deal with legislation, I have no partisan interest. It is interesting, however, that the Modernisation Committee suggested that it would be better for Chairs or members of Select Committees to carry out that process, and for the Chairmen's Panel to take over when the normal line-by-line consideration of a Bill starts. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the House gave the impression that he had been nobbled by the Chairmen's Panel.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the conclusions of the report to which I put my name, which reflect the discussions in Committee. I made the point that we must adopt the change enthusiastically, as it could be a radical change, and I want it to be. As can often happen in this place, however, proposals that are meant to lead to radical changes suddenly diminish in significance under the pressures of this institution's various long-held traditions.
	On September sittings, I certainly recognise that our short experiment with them so far has not worked well in many respects. Certainly, I am not thirled to the idea that there must be September sittings in just the same way as in previous years. I am not sure that everyone in the House gave their full enthusiastic support to the idea of September sittings, although they could have been made to work more effectively. Nor do I think that they were a total disaster. I accept, however, that there is every reason to reconsider exactly how we sit in September, if we continue to do so.
	It would be entirely wrong, however, to return to having a long, three-month gap in the summer recess, as we had this year. There are several reasons for that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) pointed out, for those of us who have children at state schools in Scotland, it is problematic that schools in certain parts of Scotland return within two weeks of Parliament rising for the summer recess. If we want to have a Parliament for the entire UK, and one that allows those from all situations in life, including those who have younger families, to put themselves forward as MPs, we should at least try to be as helpful as possible to those who want to spend more time in the summer with their children.

Helen Goodman: As my hon. Friend says, Members across the House say that they want a more representative Parliament with more women in it. Inevitably, that means thinking about making the way that we operate more family friendly. That would be beneficial not just to Scottish Members, but to English and Welsh Members. We are not talking about doing more work in total but about shuffling it around the year. If we have September sittings, we will be able to maintain recesses in the middle of February and at the end of May.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not interrupt the hon. Lady, but that really was a long intervention.

Mark Lazarowicz: I agree with all my hon. Friend's points. In that context, I recall a comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who made a good speech, much of which I agreed with. On the issue of school holidays and their impact on MPs, however, he commented that the House authorities were no doubt wrestling with the issue even at this moment. With respect, there is every possibility that the House authorities will wrestle with the issue for decades and perhaps centuries before coming up with an acceptable solution. That is why I, for one, am reluctant to give up September sittings until we have a better alternative.

Martin Salter: I just wished to make it clear that I was being ironic.

Mark Lazarowicz: That probably proves my point. I must apologise to my hon. Friend for citing the one passage in his speech that was not ironic.
	The issue is broader than simply the advantages for hon. Members with young families, although obviously they are important if we wish to have a Parliament that is representative of society and of people in different personal circumstances. The wider issue is having a long period in which we are not able to exercise our functions properlyto hold the Government to account, to scrutinise the work of Government and to raise the important issues of the day, if we think that it is necessary. This summer is a case in point. We did not have a recall of Parliament, although many of us wanted one. There was every reason to have a recall, because there were important issues to addressnot least what was happening in the middle eastand many of our constituents asked us to raise their concerns. My constituents were taken aback when I replied that I could write to Ministers and ask for a recall, or write articles for newspapers, but I could not do much more in exercising my duties as a Member of Parliament to represent their concerns.

Andrew MacKinlay: Surely the example we must address is not the recall of Parliament because of an invasion of another country, but a recall because of a transport tragedy, such as the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise or a major rail crash. If that happened today, we would have a statement and questions tomorrow. If it happens in September, there is no statement and no examination.

Mark Lazarowicz: That is a good point. Clearly if there was an overwhelming international or national crisis, Parliament would be recalled, but the longer the recess, the less likely it is that hon. Members will be able to raise issues in Parliament in a relatively timeous and speedy fashion.
	The opportunity to table written questions is better than nothing, but it is not the same as having the opportunity to raise issues in the Chamber. If that logic were carried through to its ultimate conclusion, we could sit one day a week and spend the rest of the time tabling written questions. Some hon. Members might like that, but I do not think that it is the right way forward.
	Another aspect of the physical presence of Members at Westminster is the informal contact. One knows more about what is going on because one is here. London Members or those close to circles of power may be able to keep in touch, but what if one is not in that fortunate situation? During the summer recess, one is way out of touch with what is going on in the centres of power. We are not always in touch when we are here in the House, but we have more chance to take part in the more nebulous type of policy debate and holding the Government to account if we are actually here, not in our constituencies.
	As I said, the September sitting arrangements are not perfect. I would prefer to have a slightly shorter sitting week, so that we could spend more time on Mondays and Fridays in our constituencies, and to sit for more weeks, instead of a situation in which for three months of the year we are hardly in Parliament and for eight monthsapart from weekendswe are hardly in our constituencies. It would be good to have a better mix between being in Parliament and being in our constituencies, so that we could pick up on the feelings of our constituents about issues and raise them in the Chamber if we chose to do so.
	The present arrangements are not perfect, and I respect the sincerity of the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West and for Lewisham, Deptford about the need for a fundamental look at how the parliamentary calendar operates. However, I support the amendment in favour of retaining some form of September sitting because I do not think that we will ever get any other solution if we get rid of it now. The idea will disappear into the sunset, and there will be no change of any sort for decades to come.
	We should not get rid of September sittings and then look for a better system for the entire year. Instead, we should come up with a better system for the entire year first, and then talk about changing the sittings in September. In the meantime, instead of having a three-month gap between leaving this place and returning, we have an opportunity to come back a bit earlier. We must not give that up.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have now to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion relating to Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 250, the Noes were 227, so the motion was agreed to. On the motion relating to the Voluntary Reduction (Modulation) of Direct Farm Support Payments, the Ayes were 247, the Noes were 226, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Legislative Process

Question again proposed.

Nick Harvey: My purpose in rising in this debate is to address some remarks to motion 6 in respect of the proposed communications allowance, but I shall begin by throwing in my tuppence worth on September sittings. In 2002 I voted enthusiastically in favour of the experiment, but I do not believe that returning here for two weeks and then clearing off for another three or four has proved a sensible or useful way to conduct our business. I have a lot of sympathy with those who have said that we should come back here by mid or late September, and that that should be the start of the new parliamentary calendar.
	In this day and age, children are not taken on holiday during the school term. Schools go back at the start of September, and I do not see why party conferences, if they are going to take place in that month, cannot be rattled through pretty quickly. That would mean that the House could be back here well before the end of the month to begin our autumn's work. Anyhow, I shall vote for the motion tonight and hope that we will make progress on the matter that I have set out.

Charles Walker: We could rattle through the party conferences in a week, but all parties want their own week in the sun. The three main parties currently occupy successive weeks in September, but to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants we would have to persuade them to hold their conferences at the same time. That would be a difficult challenge.

Nick Harvey: I do not think that holding the conferences at the same time would be the solution, but all the parties seem to be making an effort to make them shorter. Therefore, even if they took place consecutively, the period devoted to them could be over more speedily.
	As has been noted several times today, the widely observed problem of disconnect between Parliament and the public might be a contributory factor to lower turnouts at elections. The Hansard Society published a report that challenged Parliament to up its game in its relations with the public. We have started to do that. Our Select Committees, and the House itself, employ press officers to explain our work to the public. More outreach officers go into constituencies and local education authorities to explain the work of Parliament. The education unit has expanded its programme of school visits and produced new films about our work, while its work books are part of the national curriculum. In addition, a major overhaul of the parliamentary website is under way, although it is still very much a work in progress.
	I welcome the efforts that the House as a body corporateif I might use the phrase in this contexthas made to up its game. However, if those communications are to work we have to recognise that the work of the House is the work of its Members. It is ridiculous for us to think that we can sit back and let the House and its Officials explain what is going on and that we do not have a greater part to play in the process, not least because opinion polls and, I think, the report of the Hansard Society note that when the public are asked what they think about MPs in general they have rather a derogatory view, but they usually take quite a benign view of their own MP. There is a challenge for MPs to take more of a role in their constituencies in explaining their own work and the work of the House. There is nothing illegitimate in an MP making a report, in non-partisan terms, about what the MP is doing and about what Parliament is doing.
	The existing arrangements are profoundly unsatisfactory, however. As the House knows, during this Session I have been serving on both the Members Estimate Committee and the Committee on Standards and Privileges, so I have seen the issue from both ends. Concerns about the current arrangements have been knocking around for a long timecertainly longer than I have been involvedand it has taken two or three years for a constructive proposal to be put on the table. We have one before us today, in the shape of the recommendation from the Leader of the House for a communications allowance. I commend him on having taken the initiative in trying to address such a tricky issue.
	Members have already touched on the anomalies in the existing regulations. I will start with pre-paid post and House stationery, to which Members have unlimited access at present. In the year running up to the election, we reached a ridiculous situation: Members' average spend on those two items put together was about 3,500, but in one or two cases there were some outrageous expenditure totals, one of which stretched to more than 50,000. The system cannot be working properly when some Members, seemingly within the regulations, can spend up to 15 times the average. Clearly, that has to be addressed.

Andrew Pelling: It was in fact my predecessor who spent that amount. Does not the concrete proposal that has been made offer us the opportunity to put a cap on that type of expenditure? It is too easy to dismiss the proposed allowance as extra money for Members of Parliament, when it is actually an initiative that would put a cap on irresponsible behaviour.

Nick Harvey: I agree entirely. The hon. Gentleman has correctly discerned the motivation of the Leader of the House in tabling the motion.
	The situation regarding envelopes and stationery is curious, as Members have already observed. The rules say, in principle, that Members are not supposed to use those facilities to send out unsolicited mailings. The Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Serjeant at Arms and the commissioner found some difficultyI choose my words carefullyin picking their way through the regulation. It is absurd that if a post office were due to close in a village of 100 houses in a Member's constituency, he or she could not write about the closure to the 200 residents who live in those housesyet if the Member received a petition on the future of the planet signed by 30,000 people, it would be perfectly in order to use the crested stationery and pre-paid envelopes to correspond with them. That is clearly nonsense. Whatever else happens, if we leave in place a system that allows unlimited use of post and stationery, we need far clearer and more definite rules than we have at present. If anything, the rules are rather over-prescriptive; I should prefer a more sensible regime, but with a clear cap on the expenditure. We cannot have our cake and eat itit must be one way or the other.
	I come now to annual reports and similar communications sent out by Members that can be funded by the IEP, where there are also some strange rules. For example, the content of those reports is rightly supposed to be non-partisan, but if we include a direct quote of something said in Parliament, it becomes possible to refer to our own speeches in Westminster Hall, during which the most scandalously partisan points may have been raised. Such comments could be passported straight into the report with no infringement of the rules. That is clearly absolute nonsense, which makes a complete mockery of the system, and it needs to be tightened up.
	The motion before the House invites us to consider the communications allowance and the Members Estimate Committee is invited to bring forward regulations that would allow us to address all the anomalies to which I have referred. Some have asked why we need a communications allowance and why we are not simply allowed greater use of envelopes and stationery. For one thing, that is an incredibly expensive way for MPs to take proactive communication out to the constituency. Each item sent will incur the full postage rate whereas there are, as hon. Members will know, much more economically viable ways of communicating with large numbers of people. Rather than use ordinary postage of the Royal Mail, it is far better to have a communications allowance through which Members can use their own ingenuity and ability to manage a budgetto refer back to an earlier pointin order to get the best solution that best suits the communications that they want within the rules that are rightly understood as necessary to exclude party political purposes.

Andrew MacKinlay: It is the ingenuity point that worries me because it leaves great scope for misunderstanding and avoidance. The US Congress allows mailings, but they are all in the same format. If we are to go down this road, we should opt for parity of treatment, similar format and minimal scope for innovation. We should all have the same degree of communication.

Nick Harvey: I certainly agree with the objective of trying to put Members on an equal footing. As I have said, it cannot be right that some are spending 15 times more public money than average on communications. We could go down the route of having a precisely equal format, but I do not welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of trying to stamp out innovation. In the modern era, there are many different ways of communicating and there could be generation gaps between different Members in how they proceed. We need a certain amount of flexibility. The motion calls for the rules to be worked out, so it would be perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to make his recommendations to the Committee.
	I was dismayed to hear the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) imply that she intended to vote against the motion simply because she would prefer our usage of envelopes and crested stationery to be paid for out of the communications allowance. I agree with hershe is entirely rightabout how it should operate, but it seems to me to be within the scope of the motion for that sort of detail to be dealt with by the Members Estimate Committee, as it draws up the detailed regulations to accompany the allowance. The right hon. Lady will have a further opportunity to make her point at that stage, and if it came back to the House later she could pick it up again. I honestly do not believe that her preference for operating the scheme, which I share, provides any reason at all to vote against the motion.
	I also listened carefully to the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, who accurately described some of the difficulties experienced in implementing the rules as they stand, and I rather shared his point of view that the new regime should not give rise to a big increase in the total spend. Again, that issue can be hammered out when the details are formulated, but the motion today establishes a principle. I believe that it is a good and right principle.
	Communicating with our electorate what Members and Parliament are doing is an entirely legitimate right. It happens in many other countries and it is important to undertake that work if we are to improve the House's reputation. However, everybody must be on an equal footing, and there must be a cap and better and more logical rules. The communications allowance proposal represents the best opportunity to try to create such a regime that we have had for a long time. When I consider how long it has taken to get to that point, I shudder to think how long it will take to get back here if we blow the chance today and reject the proposals. I therefore urge hon. Members to support motion 6.

Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who serves on the House of Commons Commission and the Members Estimate Committee, as I do. His words are interesting and he is right to refer us to the text of the motion on the communications allowance. It states:
	That this House welcomes the principle of establishing, from 1st April 2007, a separate Allowance for Members of Parliament to assist in the work of communicating with the public on parliamentary business and instructs the Members Estimate Committee to prepare a detailed proposal for such an allowance.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point that, if we miss the opportunity today, we will not get to grips with the problem, which has been aired fully, with many hon. Members explaining their circumstances and how they relate to their constituents.
	I apologise for not being present earlier because of the national health service lobby in Central Lobby and elsewhere. I cannot refer to some of the earlier points that were made, but I am glad that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) remains in his place because he explained that he felt disadvantaged as a Member of Parliament who has not been here long when compared with those who have been here for some 20 years. I assure him that, after 20 years, he will find a way of filling those Wednesday evenings that currently leave him at a loose end.
	I am glad that you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I became a Member of Parliament 23 years ago and you followed my maiden speechwe all remember the occasion of our maiden speeches. When I first became a Member of Parliament, we left the premises in July and did not return for 12 weeks. It never entered our minds to come back for very simple reasons: we had a locker, not an office, and we had no reason to be here. As the years passed, the facilities changed and one can do as much work here as elsewhere in those three months.
	I was interested to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who urged September sittings. I work here throughout September as Second Church Estates Commissioner and I assure hon. Members that it is no joke. The place is a building site, there are no facilities and it is difficult to get anything done.
	I refer hon. Members to the written answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) mentioned about the cost of coming back in September. We are always told to take the ratepayer and the taxpayer into account and how much we are costing them. One figure that my hon. Friend did not provide was the cost of the two-day emergency recall in September 1998, which was estimated to be 375,000 in work costs. There were other staff costs, mainly for security and some overtime, which amounted to 33,200. That was for an emergency recall, the reasons for which we all understand. However, having a September sitting when the place is a building site costs much more.
	The place becomes a building site because the Houses of Parliament are about 150 years old. I estimate that it would take 14 years to put the building right through repairs, yet they can be carried out only in the 12-week summer recess. If we consider value for money for the taxpayer, there is no great benefit in coming back in September.
	When I came into the Chamber, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) was making an intervention about foreign trips in September. I had the honour, through the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of leading a parliamentary delegation to Algeria in September. It was the first delegation of its kind, and it had the blessing of the President of Algeria and our Prime Minister. It was an important trip for the purposes of opening up our democracy to the democracy of Algeria, a strategic partner in the Mediterranean and in Africa. It would have been a tremendous blow if that delegation had not been allowed to go ahead because of a September sitting. When we were in Algeria, we were told that a Minister of the Crown was due to visit the country in October and that people were looking forward to that visit. However, there was some hesitation about whether it would go ahead because the business of the House might result in the Minister not being allowed to go. Cancelling such trips at the last moment would diminish the prestige of the House of Commons and of this Parliament.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made an eloquent and profound speech earlier, in which he said that the Members Estimate Committee would be in charge of determining how the communications allowance is to be worked out. That could be a challenge for the Committee, but it is a challenge that we are quite happy and willing to take up.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred to their relationships with their constituencies. We all find that difficult in this day and age because the bridge between civil society and political society is the media. We are generally able to communicate with our constituents only through the media. The media have changed, however, and they now have a different analysis of the situation. I do not wish to comment on particular instances, but there are newspapers around the country that have cancelled the contracts of their parliamentary reporters. They no longer have a parliamentary reporter here. How are the Members of Parliament in such constituencies to communicate with the electorate? Regardless of what people may think about the various allowances and expensesI should say allowances, rather than expensesevery allowance is fully approved by the House authorities. However, there are distortions within those allowances that we need to take into account. The communications allowance will provide a way of doing that, which is why I give it my full support.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that compelling argument about the media. Does he also accept that some parts of the media, even the local media, can take a dislike to a politician and play politics

Kevan Jones: Surely not!

Bob Spink: Oh, yesnot that that happens in Castle Point. However, those sections of the media can become political and influence the way in which an MP's message goes out, both visually and in the way in which they print what the MP says. We must empower MPs to overcome that phenomenon.

Stuart Bell: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. During the Cleveland child abuse crisis some 20 years ago, certain newspapers decided, for the sake of it, to mount personal attacks on me. I was personally attacked by some sections of the media for no reason other than that they wanted to be controversial. When that happens at local level, it can distort the way in which a Member of Parliament goes about his business and how his constituents will see him. In society, it is a fact that mud sticks.
	It is important that we give the motion on the communications allowance our full support. I should also like to reiterate my full support for the motion that there should be no September sittings. They are not conducive to the House of Commons. Having listened to the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I sometimes think that we take ourselves too seriously. We think that we have greater powers than we actually have. Our role here is to hold the Executive to account, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and others have said. That is the great challenge that the House of Commons faces. We are a sovereign Parliament for a sovereign people, and we should be able to communicate with our electorate without the distortions of the press. The communications allowance will represent a step forward in that regard. Furthermore, there is no need to have September sittings in order to fulfil our functions.

Peter Bone: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), who made a powerful and important speech. Unfortunately, I think that I will disagree with him on several points.
	I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to the motion on September sittings. I am disappointed that the Leader of the House has tabled a motion that would increase the power of the Executive and decrease the power of Parliament. I would have thought that the Leader of the House should be the champion of parliamentary democracy, but the motion would do nothing to strengthen the power of Parliamentin fact, it would take that away.
	It is a great honour and privilege to be a Member of Parliament. As parliamentarians, our primary duty is to hold the Executive to account. However, year after year, the Government are taking more power and bypassing Parliament at every level. One of the few weapons that MPs have left in their battle with the Executive is oral questionsbringing Ministers to the Dispatch Box and questioning them on important issues of the day, thus making the Government explain their actions.
	To most people outside the House, the idea that Parliament shuts down for 12 weeks in the summer and autumn is unacceptable. They believe that MPs swan off for extra-long holidays and that the Government get off scot-free, and that reinforces their perception of us. Everyone here knows that the first part of that statement is untrue. Members spend the recess in their constituencies attending meetings and events and doing constituency work. However, the second part of the statement is correct: the Government are given a free rein.
	Last summer, Parliament did not sit for 76 days, despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the situation in the middle east, the collapse of the immigration system, law and order issues, terrorism and the cuts in the health service. Not once in 76 days were Members able to question a Minister at the Dispatch Box. Not once were Ministers able to make statements in the House before Members could quiz them over their actions. Not once were MPs allowed to ask oral questions on one of the 100 or so written ministerial statements that were rushed out just before the summer recess, and at no time did the Prime Minister come to the House to explain his and the Government's actions. It is not right for democracy that the Government are immune to scrutiny by Parliament for 76 days in the summer.

Kevan Jones: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. If he is suggesting that the House should sit during those 76 days, for how many days does he think that the House should sit throughout the year?

Peter Bone: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come on to that point later in my speech.
	Members of Parliament have many roles to fulfil, but the most important is holding the Executive to account. This democratic right has been denied to us during the summer recess. That is extremely damaging for democracy. It is damaging that so much power is given to the Executive, who escape scrutiny.

David Winnick: I certainly do not wish to antagonise the hon. Gentleman, given that he supports my amendment. I have obviously advocated his argument. However, not sitting in the summer has been the situation for a long timefor centuries, I suppose. In 1996, for example, which was the last year of the Conservative Government, the House rose on 25 July and went back on 14 October. In 1992, it rose on 16 July and went back on 19 October. The situation has thus been continuous.

Peter Bone: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. For years and years, the Executive have eroded the power of Parliament. We have the opportunity today to put the balance back a little further towards where it should be.
	It is not right that during the summer recess the only scrutineers of the Government are the media. The media have a role to play in scrutinising the Government but they are not elected, they do not have to respond to constituents, and many in the media have their own agenda. I have made clear in the House on several occasions my views in favour of September sittings. However, I am not suggesting that the House sits for two weeks in September and then reconvenes in October after the conference season. It is absurd and a waste of time and money to reconvene for a short period, only to break up again for a short period before Parliament starts properly in October.
	The new parliamentary term should commence in September and follow through until the Christmas recess. I see no problem in keeping the conference dates as they are. Not all Members go to the conferences anyway, and under my proposals Members would have the choice of attending the party's conference or being present in Parliament. I am not suggesting that parliamentary time in September should be used to create new legislation or to force Divisions. I want to use September for innovation and to free up time for scrutiny.
	If Parliament sits in September, that month should be used for in-depth reviews of Government Departments. It is right that a Minister should come to the House in September and answer Members' questions about a particular Department. Why not have a whole week's review of the Department of Health? Time should also be set aside for parliamentary questions to be asked in the House and answered by the various Departments. The Prime Minister or his Deputy should come to the House each week and explain his actions. There would not need to be votes on matters brought before the House during this period, but it would provide much needed time for debate and to review and scrutinise the Government's running of our country. That would give right hon. and hon. Members the chance to question Ministers on matters of importance to them and their constituents.
	Several reasons have been given as to why it would be impossible to begin the parliamentary term in September, and a deal of opposition has been expressed. Let us consider the objections. As a recent parliamentary answer by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) suggests, the building works programme is planned to fit in with the expected parliamentary timetable, and by changing the timetable it would cost more because building works would have to be carried out in a shorter space of time. What a ridiculous excuse to use. There is no reason why works could not be planned around a new parliamentary timetable. I refuse to believe that that would cost taxpayers more money in the long run. Quite the reverseif during September we were to properly scrutinise the Executive and Government Departments, we could perhaps save taxpayers millions upon millions of pounds. Are we really saying that building works should determine when the mother of Parliaments sits?

Mark Lazarowicz: Is it not worth pointing out that the assumption always was that if at some time September sittings were to take place, Parliament would rise a little earlier in July? So it is not a case of there being no time at all for works in the summer. There would be some time at the beginning to make up for time lost at the end.

Peter Bone: I entirely agree. I am arguing that there should not be an 11-week gap when the Government are not scrutinised. September sittings would give the opportunity to introduce new ideas and innovations.
	I do not buy the excuse that it would cost a huge amount of money for the Commons Chamber and the rest of the parliamentary estate to be open. It is open anyway during the recess, with thousands of staff and visitors using the site every day. The cost of running the Chamber would be a marginal extra cost. Are we really saying that cost should be placed before democracy?
	Above all, I do not buy the excuse that parliamentary sittings in September would prevent Members from spending time in their constituencies, for two reasons. First, the September sittings would be a period of debate, scrutiny and review, in which there would be no Divisions, and in which no new legislation would be introduced.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman has still not answered my first question on how long Parliament should sit throughout the year. However, on another point, I know that he is new to the House, and he is obviously very enthusiastic, but is he seriously suggesting that, if there were no Divisions during such a period, there would be mass attendance in the Chamber?

Peter Bone: I have never seen mass attendance in the Chamber, except during parliamentary questions. As I shall make clear later, my proposal will give hon. Members who want to stay in their constituencies in September the opportunity to do so, and will allow Members who want to question Ministers in the House to attend Parliament. There will be no onus on those Members who wish to remain in their constituency to attend Parliament during that period, but other Members will have the opportunity to hold the Government to account.
	Secondly, and most importantly, it is not the case that a Member of Parliament can either be in his constituency or attend Parliamentit is the role of Members to do both. It is not the case that, when Parliament is sitting, hon. Members do not visit their constituencies. When Parliament is sitting, I am not prevented from seeing constituents, holding weekly advice surgeries, or continuing with my rolling survey of constituents through my Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden campaign. I attend meetings, events and functions, yet I am still present in Parliament for questions, debates and Divisions. The situation would be no different if Parliament met in September. If Members wished to remain in their constituencies for the whole of September, there would be nothing to prevent them from doing so, but September sittings would give Members who wanted it parliamentary time for genuine debate and scrutiny. September sittings would allow us to fulfil both of our major roles as Members of Parliament. If Parliament reconvenes in September, we will have a real opportunity to be innovative in how we use the parliamentary time.

Dawn Butler: On a point of clarification, I understand that the hon. Gentleman supports the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I followed my hon. Friend's arguments, but I find it a little difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he suggesting that the House should sit in September, but that Members should be able to choose whether to attend, depending on whether it is a commutable distance for them?

Peter Bone: I have not made my point clear, so I shall try again. I am saying that in September, there would be no Divisions and no new legislation would be introduced, so Members would not have to attend, as they must in the rest of the year. It would give us a period in which we could do things differently.

Kevan Jones: It would be a little naive not to recognise that the hon. Gentleman's proposals would result in a feeding frenzy for the press, as they could track down who attended which debate, at a time when MPs might well want to do valuable work in their constituency, instead of attending a debate in the House that might be of very little relevance to their constituents.

Peter Bone: It would be an appalling state of affairs if the House made its decisions according to what the media considered right.
	I suggest that we use September sittings to hold in-depth reviews of particular Departments, in which Members would have the opportunity to ask more than one question to the Minister in charge. The time would also give us the opportunity to hold more Adjournment debates on subjects that are of great interest, but that cannot otherwise fit into the parliamentary timetable. Even if we had September sittings, Members would still have a recess of at least six weeks, and in those six weeks, if Parliament needed to be recalled to discuss urgent business, Parliament should make that decision, and not the Executive.
	Motion 7 argues that September sittings should be abolished, due to the introduction of a procedure for the tabling and answering of written questions during the summer recess. That is an interesting idea, and I participated fully in the experiment that took place in the summer recess. Named day questions were delayed, some Ministers did not even attempt to answer the questions that I put to them, and some responses were incorrect. I have expressed concern about such problems many times in points of order, parliamentary questions, Westminster Hall debates and letters to Ministers. To use an example that I have used several times in the HouseI shall continue to use it until a member of the Government admits misleading the Housesince November 2005, the Prime Minister and several of his colleagues have stood at the Dispatch Box and told the House that no one waits more than six months for an NHS operation. In fact, Ministers have made that assertion no fewer than 14 times in ministerial statements and answers to parliamentary questions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In his enthusiasm to pursue the argument about September sittings the hon. Gentleman is going rather wide, so I must rule him out of order.

Peter Bone: I was trying to make the point that if those statements were made immediately before the recess, they could not be challenged in the 11 weeks in which Parliament does not sit. If the House adopted my proposal of in-depth reviews of Parliament, the hypocrisy of those statements could be exposed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps spoiling his argument with the use of immoderate language, which we generally deplore in the House. He might rephrase what he has just said.

Peter Bone: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the House sat in September, hon. Members would not have to worry about the pressure of voting. They would have more time for scrutiny, and we could correct inconsistent facts in statements. Ministers seem to be able to say certain things, but there is not enough time for Back-Bench Members to correct them. In conclusion, if we do not vote for the amendment, we will close off the opportunity for September sittings, whether or not we wish to reschedule the parliamentary year. In my opinion, it is quite wrong that for 11 weeks this Government, or any other Government, should not face parliamentary scrutiny.

Bob Spink: There are great benefits in being called early or late in a debate, as one can make a speech to many more excellent colleagues in the Chamber, although that may well give me more pleasure that it gives them.
	It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who made an excellent speech that was only five minutes long. He made his points better for his brevity, and I believe that he shared my amusement and amazement that many right hon. and hon. Members spoke for 20 or 30 minutes in a debate partly dedicated to shorter speeches. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, it is desirable to restrict speeches, but three minutes is too extreme a limit and would frustrate good debate in the Chamber. I shall therefore vote against that measure.

David Heath: As the hon. Gentleman was one of several Members who intervened on me, would he prefer me not to accept his interventions in future?

Bob Spink: As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes a compelling point, and he has disabused me of that notion.
	I oppose motion 7, as I support September sittings. Politics is changing fastin an increasingly globalised and uncertain world, there are more threats and opportunities. We have experienced major problems such as wars, terrorism, extreme weather events and disasters, and serious events have occurred in the UK. Parliament must deal with those events, and speed of response is often of the essence.
	September sittings would allow more time to scrutinise the Executive. That does not mean more legislationwe need less legislationbut we need better to scrutinise legislation and the Executive.
	The press and public opinion is not the only issue or even the main issue in this debate, but it is a concern. The public are increasingly sceptical about politics and political structures. There is a serious disconnect, because the publicI believe incorrectlydo not think that we are doing the job how they want to see it done. The public interest and democracy are best served by this House tackling public cynicism, which, whether we like it or not, is caused in part by our very long recess. We need to be seen to be more responsive and more in touch with the real world as events unfold.
	We should not organise the activities of this House for the convenience of political parties and their conferences, which are outdated and which can be counter-productive. I believe that party conferences are part of the problem of public disengagement and not part of the solution. My hon. Friends know that I have not been to my party conference for some years, and I am the better for it and so are my constituents, whom I serve better because I am in my constituency rather than playing politics at a seaside resort.
	Parliament must retake more power and control over the Executive and hold the Executive better to account if democracy is to be saved and rehabilitated, and stopping the Government's 80-day scrutiny holiday would be a good start.

Robert Goodwill: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not only the Government who are escaping scrutiny? The European Parliament returns on August bank holiday Monday, so there are five weeks when this House cannot scrutinise and comment on what goes on there.

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend has made a characteristically excellent point, and I congratulate him on it.
	We must re-examine the powers that enable us to recall Parliament. It must be in the gift of MPs rather than parties or the Executive to force the recall of Parliament.
	The bottom line is that this House should sit in September, perhaps at the end of September, to avoid the stop-start situation, which is difficult to explain. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has said, perhaps we should use light sittings, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has explained, perhaps we should use innovative approaches. We should certainly be here; we should be better holding the Executive to account; and MPs should be given powers to recall Parliament, as and when it is necessary to do so.

Malcolm Bruce: I commend the Leader of the House for motion 4, on Standing Orders, which will take forward how we deal with legislation in the House.
	In an earlier intervention, I said that I had heard comments from public and private agencies in ScotlandBritish organisations that deal with both the Scottish Parliament and Westminster, and can make comparisons. They have concluded that the way in which legislation is handled in Scotland, whether or not it involves a partnership or shared responsibility between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, is much more efficient and effective and that the quality of the legislation is much higher. That is not because the calibre of the political animal in Scotland is necessarily better, but because the process ensures that evidence is taken and that committees help to shape legislation through their deliberations. Problems of the kind that we have here, whereby legislation is ill prepared and there are lots of late Government amendments, do not happen to anything like the same extent. The Leader of the House's proposal seems to give us a much better chance of achieving that quality, which would benefit the House, outside agencies wishing to influence legislation, and, ultimately, the Government, who will end up with better laws.
	There is a demarcation dispute as to who should chair the evidence-taking element of the Committee. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is not in his place, declared his interest as a member of the Speaker's Panel. I am surprised that relatively few members of the Liaison Committee have taken part in the debate, because they said at a meeting last week that they were somewhat unhappy with some of the proposals, and I would have thought that some might come here to say so. The process of taking evidence is different from that of deliberating on a Bill. It is no disrespect to the excellent members of the Chairman's Panel to suggest that it is not necessarily where their experience lies, although of course if their job changes their competence will change.
	It is argued that members of Select Committees who specialise in a particular Department have particular expertise, so the quality and depth of their inquisition is therefore likely to be that much more effective. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) told me informally that when he sat on the Puttnam Committeea Committee of both Houses that took evidence on the Ofcom legislationhis expertise hugely helped the process of the deliberations and improved the quality of the Bill.
	I hope that the House will consider and accept the recommendations made by the Modernisation Committee in this respect. I also hope that the Leader of the House, who implied in his response to the hon. Member for Buckingham that he was rather more in favour of the Chairman's Panel approach, will reflect on the matter, and that we may even have the opportunity to discuss it more fully.
	I want to speak against motion 7, on September sittings, and in favour of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Indeed, an amendment of a somewhat similar character stands in my name. It is worth recalling that before the introduction of September sittings, the House was recalled during the summer recess in 1992, 1998, 2001 and 2002. In 2003, when the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) was Leader of the House, he said:
	The hon. Gentleman should note that there was no demand for the House to be recalled over the summer recess. Why? Because everyone knew that we were coming back at the earliest opportunity in September. Year after year, however, there have been almost ritual demands for a recall...The public do not understand how we can be in recess for 13 weeks, as happened with the old model.[ Official Report, 18 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 1077.]
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) gave examples of years in which the recess lasted for 13 weeks.
	I am not interested in what the media think about what we are doing during those 13 weeksI am interested in how we can possibly stand up in front of our constituents and say that the important business of questioning Ministers and calling Parliament to account goes on week in, week out, except for 13 weeks when it does not go on at all. I think that most people understand that there is a period in August when hardly any other Parliament in the world sits, other than in extremis. As the then Leader of the House said, Members can hold back for a few weeks if we know that the House is going to be sitting and that we can marshal our arguments before we make our case. It is not credible to suggest that we can do the job that we are elected to do effectively when the House does not sit for 13 weeks at a time. Frankly, I found some of the contrary arguments breathtakingly unbelievable.

Mark Pritchard: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is, by definition, likely that he would see less of his constituents as a result of sitting in this place in September, and that as a result, he would be less well advised about issues in his constituency?

Malcolm Bruce: The answer is simple. The House needs to sit regularly, with regular breaks. We should neither sit for too long nor be away for too long. That ensures that we get the balance right between time spent in the constituency and time spent dealing with matters in the House. It is the distribution of our work load that is inefficient and ineffective, in that the job we are supposed to do simply cannot proceed.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) made some suggestions that I found interesting, although they were somewhat derided.

Jack Straw: They were not derided.

Malcolm Bruce: Not by the Leader of the House, but by some other Members. There were suggestions about how we might organise the time. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) is not present, and I am not being ironic when I refer to the proposition that we turn up here only when there is a Division and the Whips require us to do so. It is true that there may well be occasions when only 30 or 40 of the 645 Members feel the need to be here, but the fact is that every Member has the opportunity to be here. Ministers have to be here, the exchange of information is here, and the public can observe what is going on and what is being said. That is what matters. Each of usall 645 Membersmust account to our constituents for where we were and why we were there, and I think most of us are big enough and ugly enough to be able to handle that reasonably competently. I believe that we are in danger of making a complacent and serious error if we vote for the recommendation by the Leader of the House.
	The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said that she used to be in favour of September sittings, but would vote against them tonight. She made some pertinent comments about the need to rebalance the whole year along the lines that I have suggested, and said that although she would vote for the motion, she hoped that we would revisit it. I heard what the Leader of the House had to say, but my honest view is that if the House votes for his motion, that is the last we shall hear of it until pressure and embarrassment build up again, and the House comes to its senses and concludes that not sitting for 12 or 13 weeks is an unacceptable way in which to conduct our business in modern times. I believe that the Leader of the House, who used to be in favour of September sittings, has made an error of judgment in this case.
	Some Members have expressed the view that our September sittings were not very effective. I agree. They were not very well organised. It was, I recall, well known that many Ministers did not really approve of them, feeling that they were a nuisance and a pain. The Government business managers, of course, control what goes into those two weeks. It is very easy to look back and say that it was not very much, but there were Second Reading debates and Report stages. There was legislative progress, which may have reduced the ping-pong pressure at the end of the parliamentary year.
	In an intervention, the hon. Member for Buckingham sensibly advanced the case for a business Committee. That would help to resolve the issues of the pattern of business, the pattern of sittings, and how business can be managed effectively. I think that those who say, The September sittings did not work very well and we should revert to the status quo ante, should instead be asking how we can arrange September sittings in a better and more effective way.
	The following is on the record, so no one should be surprised when I mention it now; nor is it the main part of my argument: we have had debates, on which the whole modernisation process hinged, about making the House a family friendly institution. That family-friendly institution was designed mostly for London Members. I am not saying that it is perfect for them, but if the House rises at about 7.30as it will tonightpresumably they can be at home with their families by 8 pm, and even earlier on Thursdays. Indeed, they can nip home between votes on Mondays and Tuesdays, unless there is a running whip. This is not special pleading from a Scottish Member. Any Member whose constituency is significantly out of town will be either in London or in the constituency, not running between the twowith the possible exception of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce).
	The serious issue is to do with the fact that most people come to Parliament for the three or four days in the week that the House is sitting to conduct their parliamentary business and they then leave, and squash in whatever they can in consultations and visits in their constituencies, which they get back to on Thursday night if they are lucky, although in some cases not until Friday morning. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) again made some sensible suggestions on whether we could have shorter weeks, but more of them, to allow for a better balance: That might work, but the House needs to take on board the fact that we are in danger of completely ignoring the family considerations of out-of-town Members, in terms of considerations such as school holidays.
	On a personal basis, when I analysed the situation as of two years ago, I found that the only times when my children and I were off together were Christmas and the first two weeks of August; there was no other time when the children were off and the House was not sitting. I am not suggesting that we can accommodate all variations to do with school holidays, given that they are changing, but I got the impression that almost every Member liked the idea of rising earlier in Julythat that suited most of us, throughout the United Kingdom. That is the case not least because in recent years we have found that the hottest and most uncomfortable weeks tend to be the last two weeks in July, and the Leader of the House will know that the weather at that time is not only uncomfortable, but it makes life worse for him, as hot and bad-tempered Members who wish they were with their families or abroad are not the most compliant and helpful of legislators.
	The original proposal was that we rise earlier in July and go back in September. I completely agree with those Members who have suggested that having a two-week sitting in September and then another break for several weeks does not work. That is why, although I am happy to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Walsall, North my amendment suggested that we required further consultation to try to work out a pattern and balance of sittings of the House that meets the various considerations. I wrote to the Leader of the House on this matter, and he courteously wrote back acknowledging the content of my letter, and I honestly thought that that was what he was engaged inthat he was involved in a discussion to see how we could review our sittings and come up with an alternative proposition that met the objectives originally set out. I certainly did not expect us to go back to having a long 12-week recess.
	I was as disappointed as other Members when I saw what the Leader of the House was proposing. I can only say to Members who do not feel satisfied with the length of the recess but are prepared to vote for the motion that I am with the hon. Member for Walsall, North. I believe that the motion will leave us with long recesses for the foreseeable future, or until such time as a head of steam for change builds up againand anybody who has been a Member of this House for quite some time, as I have, knows that it takes quite a long time for a head of steam for change to build up.
	Even at this late stage, I plead with the Leader of the House to go further than he has done in this debate. On the basis of the way that the vote is likely to go, he should say to the House that he takes on board the idea that we must think hard about how we manage the business process during the year, that he acknowledges that a 12-week recess without a break is not acceptable, and that he genuinely intends to consult more widely to see whether we can come up with a way of working that meets the needs of the House itself, our constituents, Members' families and the effective working of our democracy. If he does that, he will be welcomed as a Leader who is engaging the House in good faith. But my gut feeling is that the Government never liked the September sittings, and that they want to bury them once and for all. That would be an extremely regrettable development.
	Debates such as this are unusual, but we have had an interesting discussion and the balance of the argument has been much more even than the hon. Member for Walsall, North suggested in his initial speech. Most of the Members who vote will not have listened to the debate. But the Leader of the House has listened to the debate, and I give him credit for having been here for a very substantial part of it. I hope that he will take seriously the representations that have been made. If we simply abandon September sittings, or any reform of the pattern of sittings of the House, at this stage, we will be seriously out of touch with what our constituents expect.

Dawn Butler: As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I felt it important that I should contribute to the debate, if only briefly. At times it seemed as if some members of the Committee were there to ensure that we did not take modernisation too far.
	I want to discuss an issue that has not been dealt with so farthe section of the report dealing with information technologybut before doing so I want to stress the importance of evidence-based Committees and pre-legislative work. There has been a lot of talk today about engaging with the public. Such Committees and such work ensure that this House is effective, that we engage constructively with the public and that everybodynot just lobby groupsgets a say in how we produce legislation. A good example is the Youth Matters document. More than 20,000 people contributed to that debatenotably young people and in the end we produced a very good document. Indeed, the youth opportunity fund and the youth capital fund are working very well in my constituency.
	Whether Members like it or not, IT will play an important role in engaging the public with Parliament. I am talking not about websites such as YouTube, but effective communication. MPs and the public should be able to follow legislative debates in Committee onlinethe report states clearly how this would workand have hyperlinks to explanatory notes, and so on. People who watch our proceedings in Parliament and in Committee are amazed to discover that it is necessary to have three different sets of paperwork to try to follow the argument, which complicates matters and means that in fact, they lose the flow of the argument.
	I welcome the forthcoming pilot in Parliament. I should tell those who have doubts about technology that the Modernisation Committee took plenty of evidence on that issue. Although it was noted that Parliament's website has improved in terms of connecting with the community, we still have a long way to go. I welcome the move toward the integration of technology and the use of laptops and personal digital assistants in the House, and not only because it will increase efficiency. This House is renowned for using a lot of paper, and if we are serious about saving our planet, such a move will ensure that we use less.
	In line with the nature of this debate, I will keep my contribution very short. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will try to give the move towards the integration of technology a fair trial, because it is important that we modernise and use technology to its fullest capability. I thank the Leader of the House for helping to move forward the modernisation agenda, and I hope that it will be a success.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the chance to make a brief contribution to this debate; I am very sorry that I was not here earlier.
	I associate myself completely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)I will not repeat his argumentsand I very much appreciated the comments of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). Both chaired Committees to which I gave evidence, and both were extremely generous in their handling of those proceedings. However, it will probably come as no surprise to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire that I do not agree with the Committee's conclusions about the application of the sub judice rule.
	Although, as I said, I will not pick up on all the comments of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I will touch on three particular issues that I hope my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will deal with when he winds up.

Greg Knight: Does the hon. Lady not welcome, however, the letter that I received, and from which I quoted, from the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional affairs? It makes it clear that we now have an opportunity to reduce the long delays that have occurred, which were the source of the hon. Lady's major complaint, in cases where an inquest is opened.

Sally Keeble: I was going to deal with that as one of the three points. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the matter.
	First, it is important that there be clarification about issues of national importance. The case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) raised was of national importance; it was about security. The case that I brought was about the death of a boy. The death of a boy in a secure training centre is an enormous tragedy. In this case, it had implications for the types of holds that are used for such children in secure training centres up and down the country. They had to make changes, and there are still outstanding issues. Therefore, it was of national importance in that it affected national policy on secure training centres.
	The death of a boy in the custody of the state is sufficiently important for the Home Office to be called to account on the Floor of the House to explain why that happened and what was being done to put it right. Therefore, the definition of issues of national importance must be clearly spelled out. It must be clearly spelled out why the death of a 14-year-old boy in custody may not be regarded as an issue of national importance. In the interim, there has been a complaint to me that another boy was substantially injured while he was being held in restraint in a secure training centre, so there was a similar episode, albeit that the outcome was different.
	The second point is about the guidance to Mr. Speaker. There has been much discussion about the difference between our sub judice rule here and the sub judice rule that applies to the media. One of the big things with the media is that they break the rule first and are then tried for contempt, but here if we ask in advance whether we can raise something and we are told no, that is the end of the matter. There are no means of effective challenge. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to answer that point. He may want to set out exactly how he envisages the guidance being applied.
	The third point was raised by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), and is about the letter from the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs about the changes to coroners courts, which are going to have investigations, instead of opening and adjourning inquests. We need to know when that is going to happen, and to be clear exactly how that will interrelate with the sub judice rule as we apply it to ourselves. It has to be made clear that the coroners are going to be consistent in what they do, and that we are going to be consistent, in that we are going to regard investigations as not being judicial legal proceedings.
	I am grateful for the chance to speak in the debate. The inquest on the case about which I was concerned is not going to be until next February. Some preliminary hearings have taken place, but the inquest will not actually be until next February. That is just short of three years since the boy was killed, during which time there has been a general election. It is completely wrong that, although it has been possible to have discussions with colleagues in their office about that case, to do work with the media about it, to visit that secure training centre and another secure training centre and to talk to all kinds of people about it, it has not been possible to hold the Government to account in this Chamber, to ask questions here and to have the discussion here. That is one of the key functions that we were elected here for. If we cannot do that, there have to be cogent reasons why not.
	That matter has not been pursued flippantly. I intend to continue to pursue it until we finally get the debate about what happened to that boy and get the answers on the Floor of the House, so that people can be confident about what happens to young people in those circumstances.

Jack Straw: This has been an excellent day's debate. It has covered the ground comprehensively, and it is striking that one of the consistent themes expressed on both sides of the House is that Members are anxious better to serve their constituents.
	I want to make two points, not least to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and others. I do not think that he was in his place when I opened my remarks [Interruption.] If he was, I apologise. In my opening remarks, I was spelling out factual evidence suggesting that the House has become more effective, not less, in scrutinising the work of Ministers. I do not dispute that we still have a long way to go. The 27 years that I have been in the House, however, have seen the crucial introduction of departmental Select Committees by the then Leader of the House, Norman St. John-Stevas, in the 1979-80 Session, and their considerable strengthening over the years. We have seen the introduction of Westminster Hall. In relation to the intelligence and security agencies, of which not only was no parliamentary scrutiny allowed but Governments' official position was not to aver their existence, we now have the Intelligence and Security Committee. Legislative changes that we have made, such as the Modernisation Committee agenda and also the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, have opened up government to an extent undreamt of a generation or so ago.
	My second point is on the issue of trust and the media. If we go outside and ask people whom they most and least trust, the most trusted include ministers of religion, doctors, teachers and nurses. Competing at the bottom for the wooden spoon, depending on which day one asks such questions, are estate agents, journalists and politicians, with a special place reserved for those estate agents who are also journalists and politicians. Generally, we get low scores. But if we ask members of the public to say what they think about their own Member of Parliament, or a Member of Parliament they reckon they know, the scores rise rapidly. If they not only know their Member of Parliament but have respect for them, the scores are high and, these days, rising. I see part of my task as Leader of the House to increase those scores for everybody, in order better to facilitate the work of Members.
	Let me deal with the main issues in turn. I am grateful to the House, and I know that all members of the Modernisation Committee will be, for the overwhelming welcome for the changes proposed to the way in which Bills are scrutinised in Committee, and for the changes proposed for greater flexibility on Report. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has pointed out, Report has been up to now among the most important stages. We want Committee to be of equal importance. Additional scrutiny in Committee, provided that we introduce it carefully with improved resources available and commitments on all sides, should help to achieve that. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler) who, in relation to the use of technology, has been committed to trying to bring the House into the 21st century at the beginning rather than the middle or end of the century. She has not only made important points but proposals that have fed their way into pages 32 and 33 of the report.
	On the communications allowance, it is fair to say that the principle of it has received general but certainly not universal support. I emphasise, however, that if colleagues read the motion, they will see that it asks them to welcome the principle of the proposal without committing themselves at this stage to its final introduction, which will have to await the recommendations of the Members Estimate Committee. The matter will then come back to the House. Of course, the Members Estimate Committeethe Commission under a different titlewill take full account of the observations made. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised the issue of whether there should be one allowance or two, and it depends how we construct the rules.
	To pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), the one thing that is certain is that once the allowance is introduced, there will be caps on spending on communication, both on stationery and envelopes and on wider communications. Whether we have one allowance or two, the aggregate amount will be less than the sums currently being spent by some hon. Members on both sides. This should not be seen as Members having the chance to spend even more money: it should be seen as a way of responding to the changing expectations and increasing demands of constituents. It is also a way to improve probity, rather than undermine it.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) formally opposed the proposal, but when he reads his speech in  Hansard tomorrow I hope that he will see that he made a very good case for change, and the introduction of a rules-based communications allowance. That was the gravamen of our report.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way and I am sorry that I missed his earlier speech. Can he confirm that if we had a communications allowance it would definitely put a cap on the amount of postage Members could use and can he give us some idea of what it might be?

Jack Straw: That is ultimately a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, but if I may speak for you for a moment, I can confirm that there would be a cap. The aggregate will depend on the final recommendationswhich are not a matter for me, but for you and the Commission but the total amount for envelopes and other communication will be less than some Members currently claim for envelopes.
	The third matter is that of September sittings. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) is right. When the proposal was made originally, in 2002, I was strongly in favour of them, as a member of the Government who had been in the hot seat, in different jobs, for several summers. In 1998, a recall was requested because of the Omagh bombing, and I was Home Secretary. In 2001, the recall was for 9/11 and I was Foreign Secretary, as I was in 2002, when it was for Iraq. My view was that given that we had calls for a recall every summerand we responded to three out of six of those calls between 1997 and 2002it was better to schedule sittings in September, instead of having to respond to a silly season summer story. In retrospect, the judgments look straightforward, but they were quite difficult at the time, and had to be made in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and with you, Mr. Speaker.
	The second reason I supported September sittings was that, like many others, I had been embarrassed by the charge that we were away for 11 weeks and the ridiculous notion that we were all sunning ourselves in warmer climes for almost all that timeand if we were not abroad, we were in our gardens. That is nonsense, and every journalist knows it. Whatever other criticism there may be of Members of Parliament, the charge that we are slacking and not doing our work is not one that can be made. All the evidence showsit is there to be publishedthat MPs work very hard for very long hours. There may be an issue with how productively we work, but there is no doubt about how hard we work. There is also no doubt that the demands on us have risen exponentially. Overall, therefore, I used to think that it was better for us to come back.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South spoke about evidence, but we have to rely on our own experience. In 2005, as I said, we could not have sittings here because of the installation of the security screen. Leaving that aside, most hon. Members to whom I have spoken believe that, on balance, the experience of September sittings has not worked as intended.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that we can dismiss the costs involved, and he is right, but they need to be weighed in the balance. It is not an overriding argument to say that it may cost anything up to 12 million to interrupt the progress of major maintenance work for two or three weeks, but it is certainly a factor that needs to be considered.
	I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Gordon with great care, and I agree that we should take account of the Scottish Parliament's experience. Recently, I met a delegation from that body's equivalent of our Procedure Committee and we talked about how that Parliament progressed legislation. We need to share best practice with all comparable Parliaments, and especially those in the UK, and we also need to take account of what they do in September. In the end, though, we must make our own decisions about what is suitable.
	Neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Welsh Assembly have to navigate around the fact that, in September, we have the conferences for the TUC, the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and then the Conservative party. Were it not for those conferences, it would be relatively simple for us to come back in September, and stay back. However, they remain a difficulty.
	Meanwhile, I hope that the discussions taking place will make progress in determining whether the party conferences, which are very expensive for all the parties, can be held at different times of the year. The Labour party conference used to meet at other dates, so September is not set in stone. However, changing dates would take a long time to achieve, as conference venues are booked for years ahead. Following the recommendation from the previous Modernisation Committee, I have introduced having written questions and written ministerial statements in September. If the House approves it, the relevant motion before us will strengthen that system for the future.

Robert Key: Does the Leader of the House agree that another feature that has evolved in very recent years is the increasing regularity with which Select Committees meet and produce reports in September? For example, I am a member of the Defence Committee, and we went on four trips in September to take evidence in the UK. That was not done in previous years. September gives Select Committees a clear run to do serious work.

Jack Straw: I do accept that. Whether or not we sit in September, we need to remind the public of the incontrovertible evidence that this House sits for longer than any other European Parliament, apart from Greece. We sit for longer than most comparable Commonwealth Parliaments, and for longer hours.

David Winnick: The argument is not that we sit for shorter periods than other Parliaments. We probably sit for as long, or longer. The crux of the matter for the House to decide tonightand it seems that those of us who favour September sittings are in the minorityis that we should not be away on what is called a recess for 12 weeks, or a quarter of the year. In my view, and in the view of those who agree with me, that is totally unacceptable.

Jack Straw: I understand that that is the crux of the matter, and it is why I strongly supported September sittings when they were first proposed. However, they did not work out as intended. Other factors have intervened, including the party conferences. Furthermore, I was determined that the House should decide the matter on a free vote and that it should not be imposed by the Government, so I hope that my hon. Friend will concede that point. It is important to establish that principle. I promise that before the end of this Parliament the Modernisation Committee will review progress and the further experience of not sitting in September and will make any further recommendations that it deems fit.
	Two matters gave rise to rather more debate than I thought they would. The first was in respect of coroners proceedings and the sub judice rule. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) for their remarks and to the Procedure Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). These matters are tricky, because we do not want to pre-empt or prejudice court proceedings, but I accept what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said: there is a real difference between civil and criminal proceedings. I also accept the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that delays can sometimes be unconscionable and mean that a Member who is desperate properly to represent the concerns of his or her constituent is unable to do so in the very place designed for that purposethe House of Commons.
	My hon. Friend asked how the new rules will work. They will be a matter for the Chair, operating under the new Standing Orders and the guidance proposed by the Table Office. However, as I said in the explanatory memorandum,
	delay in inquest proceedings should be a factor for the Speaker in deciding whether to exercise his discretion.
	I know that Mr. Speaker was listening with care to my hon. Friend, as was I, and I shall certainly pursue the matter on her behalf.

John Maples: I think that those who discussed the sub judice question during the debate agreed that we would like to see how the system works from now on and whether it will be necessary to revisit it. Can the Leader of the House devise a way for him to be kept informed when questions or issues in Select Committees or elsewhere are ruled out of order as sub judice? Perhaps in a year's time we could look at the question again to decide whether it is necessary to amend the rule.

Jack Straw: I shall ask my office and the Clerk's Department to keep me informed and shall discuss the matter with Mr. Speaker.
	The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon raised the final matter to which I want to refer: the length of Ministers' speeches[Hon. Members: Too long.]That was a Whip, Mr. Speaker

Andrew MacKinlay: They never speak at all.

Jack Straw: They should indeed be seen and not heard at all times.
	Mr. Speaker, we are making decisions today about giving you wider discretion to set the length of speeches in popular debates. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that consideration should be given to setting rules for the length of Ministers' opening and closing speeches in debates, with time added for interventions. I shall discuss the suggestion with colleagues, but personally I think that there is much to be said for it, as it would ensure that debates go with a better zip than some do at present. However, as I said to the hon. Gentleman earlier, it is of profound importance to the House that Members on both sides should be able to intervene in everybody's speeches, but above all in a Minister's speech, to put the Minister on the spot

Ann Widdecombe: rose

Hon. Members: Hooray.

Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way at such an opportune moment. I am about to call a Division on an issue that is, I suspect, doomed to failure, so if the restriction of Back-Bench speeches to as little as three minuteswhich could happenis seen to give rise to problems, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to carry out a review and return to the House on the matter?

Jack Straw: Yes is my answer to that intervention. The right hon. Lady makes a point about the importance of interventions on Ministers. I spent many happy hours when in opposition, sitting on the Back Benches waiting to be called to speak in debates, and I always used to think that three minutes was better than no minutes. She may not agree and there may well have been people on the other side who thought that no minutes were, for me, better than three!
	I commend all the motions to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Legislative Process (HC 1097); approves in particular the proposals for the committal of bills to committees with powers to take evidence to become the normal practice for programmed government bills which start in this House; agrees that this be achieved by Standing Orders through the programming process, with such committees having freedom to decide how many evidence sessions should be held; agrees that the notice period for amendments to bills to be selected for debate in standing committee should, subject to the discretion of the Chair, be extended from two days to three days; supports the renaming of the various kinds of standing committee along the lines proposed by the Committee; and endorses the proposals for the gradual development of improved documentation and explanatory processes relating to bills.

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS (STANDING ORDERS)

Ordered,
	That the following repeals of Standing Orders, new Standing Orders, and amendments to Standing Orders be made with effect from the start of the next Session of Parliament; and that references to standing committees in other orders and resolutions of this House be construed accordingly:
	 (i) Standing Orders repealed
	Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees)
	Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees)
	Standing Order No. 101 (Scottish Standing Committees)
	 (ii) New Standing Orders
	'Public bill committees
	A. (1) A public bill committee shall be appointed for the consideration of each bill committed to such a committee, subject to paragraphs (4) and (5).
	(2) A public bill committee to which a bill is, or certain provisions of a bill are, committed by means of a programme order under Standing Order No. 83A (Programming motions) shall have the power to send for persons, papers and records.
	(3) A public bill committee given the power (under paragraph (2) of this order or paragraph (2)(b) of Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order)) to send for persons, papers and records may hear oral evidence at such meetings as the committee may appoint, and, unless the committee otherwise orders, all such evidence shall be given in public. The oral evidence shall be printed in the official report of the committee's debates and the committee shall have power to report written evidence to the House as if it were a select committee.
	(4) A Scottish public bill committee shall be appointed for the consideration of
	(a) each bill certified by the Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a public bill committee, and
	(b) each bill committed to a Scottish public bill committee.
	(5) The Committee of Selection may not nominate a public bill committee in respect of a private Member's bill while proceedings in another public bill committee on a private Member's bill are still active, unless notice of a motion in support of that nomination has been tabled by a Minister of the Crown:
	Provided that, if a private Member in charge of a bill for which a public bill committee has been nominated informs the Committee of Selection that he does not intend for the time being to proceed with the committee stage of his bill, the committee may nominate another public bill committee; but in such cases the first public bill committee may not meet until the second public bill committee has concluded its proceedings.'
	'General committees
	B. The following committees shall be general committees:
	(a) second reading committees;
	(b) public bill committees;
	(c) committees to consider bills on report;
	(d) the Scottish Grand Committee;
	(e) the Welsh Grand Committee;
	(f) the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(g) the Regional Affairs Committee;
	(h) Delegated Legislation Committees;
	(i) the European Standing Committees.'.
	 (iii) Amendments to Standing Orders
	Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business):
	Leave out line 81 and insert 'public bill committee'.
	Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills):
	Title, at end add 'not subject to a programme order.'
	Line 6, after 'motion' insert '(a)'.
	Line 7, leave out 'or to a special standing committee'.
	Line 10, after 'Commons', insert '; or
	(b) to give a public bill committee to which a bill has been committed under this order the power to send for persons, papers and records'.
	Standing Order No. 80A (Carry-over of bills):
	Line 30, after 'bill' insert 'and any evidence received by the committee'.
	Standing Order No. 83A (Programming of bills):
	Line 9, at end insert new paragraph:
	'(2A) A programme motion may not disapply paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. A (Public bill committees).'.
	Standing Order No. 83C (Programming sub-committees):
	Line 63, at end add
	'Provided that the Chairman may allow a sitting at which oral evidence is heard to continue for up to a quarter of an hour beyond the time provided for in the resolution.'.
	Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees):
	Line 29, at end add
	'(iii) for the consideration of any bill a draft of which, or of parts of which, has been considered by a committee of this House, the Committee of Selection shall treat a Member's membership of that committee as one of the qualifications to which it shall have regard.'.
	Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees):
	Line 6, after 'sitting' insert 'and subject to the proviso in paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. A (Public bill committees)'.
	Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees):
	Line 26, leave out paragraph (3).
	Standing Order No. 92 (Consideration on report of certain bills by a standing committee):
	Line 4, leave out 'standing committee' and insert 'committee to consider bills on report'.
	Standing Order No. 97 (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)):
	Line 46, leave out 'Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee)' and insert 'public bill committee'.
	Leave out line 53 and insert 'public bill committee'.
	Standing Order No. 117 (Standing Committee on Regional Affairs):
	Leave out title and insert 'Regional Affairs Committee'.
	Line 2, leave out 'Standing Committee on Regional Affairs' and insert 'Regional Affairs Committee'.
	Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation):
	Leave out title and insert 'Delegated Legislation Committees'.
	Line 2, leave out 'Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation' and insert 'Delegated Legislation Committees'.
	Line 5, at end insert '; and those instruments shall be distributed among the committees by the Speaker.'.
	Line 15, leave out 'Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation' and insert 'Delegated Legislation Committee'.
	Standing Order No. 161 (Duties of Serjeant at Arms with respect to the public):
	Line 14, leave out 'select and standing'.
	 (iv) Other amendments to Standing Orders relating to nomenclature
	Leave out 'standing' and insert 'public bill' in the following Standing Orders, as indicated:
	No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays), line 22;
	No. 63 (Committal of bills), lines 4, 15 and 30;
	No. 73 (Report of bills committed to standing committees), the title and line 4;
	No. 76 (Debate on bill reported from standing committee), the title and line 1;
	No. 80A (Carry-over of bills), lines 41, 43, 51 and 54;
	No. 83A (Programming of bills), lines 19, 25 and 30;
	No. 83C (Programming sub-committees), lines 2 and 51;
	No. 83D (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in standing committee or in committee of the whole House), the title and line 2;
	No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), line 22; and
	No. 120 (Business sub-committees), line 2.
	Leave out 'standing' and insert 'general' in the following Standing Orders, as indicated:
	No. 85 (Chairmen of standing committees), the title and lines 1, 7, 13, 15 and 20;
	No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), the title and line 9;
	No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees), the title and lines 3, 17 and 20;
	No. 88 (Meeting of standing committees), the title and lines 1, 10, 19 and 43;
	No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees), the title and lines 9, 13, 16, 29, 34, 44, 51 and 55;
	No. 92 (Consideration on report of certain bills by a standing committee), the title;
	No. 93 (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)), line 1;
	No. 102 (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business)), line 1;
	No. 109 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (composition and business)), line 1;
	No. 117 (Regional Affairs Committee), line 1;
	No. 119 (European Standing Committees), line 1; and
	No. 152C (Tax law rewrite (joint committee)), line 23.
	Leave out 'standing' in the following Standing Orders, as indicated:
	No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), line 4;
	No. 92 (Consideration on report of certain bills by a standing committee), line 12;
	No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation), lines 1 and 6. [Mr. Straw.]

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS (NOTICE FOR AMENDMENTS IN PUBLIC BILL COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, notices of amendments to bills committed to a public bill committee should be tabled not later than three sitting days, calculated in accordance with Standing Order No. 12(3) (House not to sit on certain Fridays), before the sitting at which they are to be considered. [Mr. Straw.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 172.

Question accordingly agreed to.

COMMUNICATIONS ALLOWANCE

Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House welcomes the principle of establishing, from 1st April 2007, a separate Allowance for Members of Parliament to assist in the work of communicating with the public on parliamentary business and instructs the Members Estimate Committee to prepare a detailed proposal for such an allowance. [Mr. Straw.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 199.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 It being after Seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker  put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

SEPTEMBER SITTINGS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That this House welcomes the introduction of a procedure for the tabling and answering of written questions and the making of written ministerial statements during the summer adjournment, as adopted by the House on 24th July for the current session; accordingly reconsiders the part of its resolution of 29th October 2002 endorsing the proposal for September sittings; and is of the opinion that the House should not sit during September (except pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order No. 13 (Earlier meeting of the House in certain circumstances)). [Mr. Straw.]
	 Amendment proposed: leave out from 'should' to end and insert
	'hold regular sittings for a period in September.'. [Mr. Winnick.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 354.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Main Question put and agreed to.

MATTERS SUB JUDICE (No. 1)

Resolved,
	That this House approves the Second Report from the Procedure Committee (HC 714) on the Application of the  sub judice rule to proceedings in coroners' courts. [Mr. Straw.]

MATTERS SUB JUDICE (No. 2)

Ordered,
	That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament,
	(1) the following Standing Order (Sub judice) be made:
	'42A. The Speaker, or the chairman, may direct any Member who breaches the terms of the  sub judice resolution of the House to resume his seat.'; and
	(2) the following amendment to Standing Order No. 89(3)(c) (Procedure in standing/general committees) be made:
	Line 40, after 'repetition),' insert 'No. 42A (Sub judice),'. [Mr. Straw.]

SELECT COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Resolved,
	That this House approves the Second Report from the Liaison Committee (HC 1271) on A New Publication Order for Select Committee Evidence. [Mr. Straw.]

EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES (TEMPORARY NOMINATION)

Ordered,
	That the Order of the House of 7th July 2005 relating to European Standing Committees (Temporary Nomination) shall continue to have effect until the end of the next Session of Parliament. [Mr. Straw.]

SHORT SPEECHES

Motion made, and Question put,
	That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the following amendment to Standing Order No. 47 (Short speeches) be made:
	Line 20, at end add
	'(3) The Speaker may call Members between certain hours to speak for a specified maximum time (not being less than three minutes) and during this time the reference to eight minutes in paragraph (1) and the provisions of paragraph (2) shall not apply.' [Mr. Straw.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 365, Noes 62.

Question accordingly agreed to.

NOTICES OF QUESTIONS

Ordered,
	That, notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) of the proviso to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), notices of questions for oral answer on Wednesday 22nd November may be given on Wednesday 15th November. [Mr. Straw.]

PETITION

Iraq

David Lepper: I have been asked to present a petition about an aspect of the situation in Iraq that has gone largely unreported: the systematic attacks on and murder of gay and lesbian Iraqis. The petition is signed by David Harvey and is supported by the names of 234 other people. The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Brighton and others,
	Declares that the petitioners are gravely concerned about reports that Coalition Forces and the Iraqi authorities are failing to take action to investigate attacks on and killing of gay people in Iraq by the Badr Death Squads.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon HM Government to take a lead by doing all in its power to persuade the Coalition and Iraqi authorities to investigate these crimes and bring to justice those responsible.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Birmingham New Street Station

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Gisela Stuart: I should first declare an interest in the matter. The concerns that I am addressing tonight are the concerns not just of my constituents in Birmingham, Edgbaston but of the constituents of all Birmingham MPs: my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe), for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), and for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff), and the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). They are either here in the Chamber or have pressing business that prevents them from being here, but they are in agreement. Also in agreement is the Birmingham gateway consortium, which includes Network Rail, Birmingham city council, Advantage West Midlands and Centro passenger transport executive.
	For those members who are lucky enough not to be as familiar with New Street station as we are in the west midlands, I should perhaps paint a picture of the station, past and present. New Street station was opened in 1854 and was one of the first major transport hubs in the west midlands.
	The station has since undergone a variety of transformations, and was entirely rebuilt in 1967. It became the first in the country to make a commercial venture out of the air space above it. That is common now, but at that time building on top of the station and using that space for shops was unique. The decision to capitalise on that valuable strategic area was a commercially astute one, which served to off-set the cost of redeveloping the station. New Street was in fact something of a flash of modernity, featuring a range of characteristics that were both intriguing and ingenious.
	Forty years on, the parts of the station that once felt impressive now seem rather more dated. It is a station that, to pick up on a common phrase these days, is no longer fit for purpose.
	New Street station handles more people than Gatwick airport, and there are more trains through the station than planes through Heathrow each day. Congestion at the station has become a serious concern and staff have had to close it on several occasions in the past few years as a result of overcrowding.
	Nor is it a problem that will go away. The recent west midlands rail capacity review, which examined rail capacity requirements in the context of proposals for the redevelopment of New Street station, highlighted a number of key points. It showed that passenger numbers are growing fast, with a further 50 per cent. growth forecast by 2026; that New Street station will remain the hub for local and regional services; and that the network can accommodate significant passenger growthup to 120 per cent. on regional and suburban lines and perhaps over 144 per cent. on long-distance servicesbut the station itself cannot cope with the forecast demand.
	To give Members some indication of the numbers involved, during the peak three-hour period, around 40,000 people go through the station. That rises to more than 120,000 over the day as a whole. Those numbers are based on 2003 figures. In short, more passenger capacity is desperately needed at New Street.

Richard Burden: As my hon. Friend says, her comments have the support of all Birmingham Members. Would she emphasise, however, that the renewal of New Street station is not just a local or even regional issue but of strategic significance to the national railway network?

Gisela Stuart: My hon. Friend is correct. The station handles about 80 per cent. of daily services to Birmingham, including long-distance trains from Euston to the north, services from the south and south-west of Scotland, Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool, and east-west services to East Anglia and through central Wales. Only recently, we found out that yet more services will terminate at New Street. Birmingham New Street is therefore an essential hub for both long-distance travel and shorter journeys throughout the UK. Its significance should therefore be considered within the wider context of the Government's strategy for the future of inter-city rail travel.
	The problem is not simply one of capacity. The Government have a clear target to reduce the environmental impact of transport. Trains create far less carbon dioxide than road or air transport for every passenger that they carry or tonnes of freight that they move. By rail, the average passenger generates 49g of CO2 per km, against 109g by car and 180g on a domestic short-haul flight. We must therefore create the opportunity for the modal shift away from cars and planes to trains. The recently published Stern report highlights the national economic necessity of getting those decisions right now.
	Moreover, transport infrastructure is one of the key factors that determines the success or otherwise of a region's economy. According to the west midlands transport partnership, the business community believes that congestion in the west midlands is currently costing our local economy 2.2 billion a year. Government funding of 350 million is a small percentage of that.
	The restraint on the west midlands because of inadequacies at New Street station is simply not sustainable in the long term. I know from the experience of businesses in my constituency and in the surrounding west midlands area that New Street station no longer provides the sort of entrance that Britain's second city and the region deserve.

Andrew Mitchell: As an Opposition Member, let me say that I agree not only with the hon. Lady's specific point but with the thrust of what she says, which will be widely welcomed in my constituency.

Gisela Stuart: I am grateful for that intervention. I stress to the Minister, who may not be sufficiently aware of Birmingham politics, that for all 11 Birmingham Members to agree so thoroughly and campaign jointly on an issue is very unusual. It is a reflection of the strength of feeling on the matter.
	The region has too often lost out on funding decisions of this kind. In stations around the country, from Manchester Piccadilly to Leeds Central, Liverpool Street and Paddington, we are slowly beginning to build a railway system of which we can be truly proud. The west midlands, however, has been left behind. The people of Birmingham and the west midlands feel passionate about this matter, which has received plenty of media coverage, and I am sure that it will be an election issue. It is not a matter for party politics, however, as it is not just MPs for the city, across the parties, who have come together. The city and the region have also come together to represent and fight for the needs of the city. There is much about the Conservative-Liberal city council administration of which I disapprove, but on this occasion, we are very much in support of each other and working together. We all want a station of which the city can be proud.
	For example, we all want people to come shopping at the newly built Bullring, an iconic building of this thriving region. If they must first go through New Street station, however, we do ourselves a disservice. In preparation for the Adjournment debate, several Members asked me, What do you want to do with New Street station? Do you want to bulldoze it? If you do, can I drive the first bulldozer, because I have had the misfortune of having to travel through it? Anybody who has ever been to the station knows that we need to do something.
	The Birmingham gateway proposal, which would take us forward, is currently being examined by the local planning authority, and it offers a real opportunity to make a difference to Birmingham and the west midlands. The proposals are for a light and open train station, a far cry from the dark and cramped experience at present. The proposed redevelopment would not only be a catalyst for regional growth and development, but offer an excellent return on the necessary investment. It would generate new jobs and opportunities, as well as improve pedestrian and rail links to the key parts of the city.
	Moreover, the redevelopment would meet the region's transport and urban regeneration objectives. Perhaps most importantly, it would secure all of that with the minimum of disruption for passengers and local people. The plans are being scrutinised and will be improved by the process of inquiry. It is clear that something needs to be done now before it is too late, and New Street, as the natural hub of the region, should see that investment.
	I am pleased that this campaign has the support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. During the Hodge Hill by-election, he commented that
	we know New Street does need to be rebuilt, the question is when and not if.
	Birmingham can no longer afford further delay. We are asking for a speedy decision. The total money needed is some 500 million, but we are asking for a commitment of 380 million of public money now. The money will come from three different sourcesNetwork Rail, the local transport plan and Advantage West Midlands. In addition, we are looking for 150 million to 170 million of private sector money. What the project requires is a commitment across Whitehall and the west midlands to ensure that those various funding streams arrive in time. We need a New Street station rebuilt to serve the needs of Birmingham and the west midlands and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of the strong support across parties and agencies for the proposals.

Tom Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this debate, and I welcome to it my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe). This is an important debate, which provides the House with the opportunity to consider the issues surrounding Birmingham New Street railway station and the action being taken by Government to address those matters. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I repeat some of the facts already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston.
	Birmingham New Street is one of the most significant stations on the rail network in Great Britain. It serves the prosperous business and residential centre of what some call the second city, although as I represent a Glasgow constituency, I would not necessarily use that phrase. New Street station is, however, an equally important location for passengers changing trains.
	The original station at Birmingham New Street was first established in the mid-19th century. The site was once occupied by two adjacent stations, built by rival companies. A major rebuilding scheme was undertaken in the 1960s. That produced the present station, which opened in 1967, complete with the Palisades shopping centre, built over much of the operational station. At the time of rebuilding, New Street station was handling some 640 trains a day, resulting in around 60,000 passengers a day passing through the station. It now caters for more than double that numbersome 1,350 trains a day, passenger numbers also having doubled to 120,000 a day.
	Business continues to increase, as witnessed, for example, on the west coast main line, where the trains operated by Virgin are now carrying 30 per cent. more passengers than before the recent upgrade to the line was implemented in September 2004. Virgin currently operates a half-hourly service to and from London. That is planned to increase to one every 20 minutes from December 2008, such is the demand for rail travel.
	The station is also an important destination for other trains. It is the focal point for Virgin Cross Country's long distance services. It is also a hub for the local and regional services of Central Trains, which play a vital role in the life of the west midlands. Trains provided by Arriva Trains Wales also serve the station on routes to and from Chester, mid-Wales and Aberystwyth.
	Rail plays an increasingly important role in the life of Birmingham and the west midlands. Some train services have increased business by more than 50 per cent. in the past five years alone. Indeed, rail's share of the travel market in the west midlands has risen from 12 per cent. some 10 years ago, to nearly 20 per cent. today. There is every expectation that such rail business will increase, and we must plan accordingly. That is especially important as we consider how best to deal with the transport needs of the west midlands in the longer term.
	A recent study, led by Network Rail but involving all the relevant train operators and the Department for Transport, concluded that the present rail system around Birmingham New Street could absorb a substantial volume of additional passenger traffic, sufficient to meet all medium-term and most longer-term needs. It also said that a doubling of business could be accommodated by lengthening trainsadding carriagesrather than by increasing train frequencies. New Street station could certainly accommodate longer trains, but platforms would have to be lengthened at some other stations.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, the present station at New Street is 40 years old, and the need to improve its size and ambience so that it can better handle increased passenger flows is a subject that has exercised the Department, Network Rail and Birmingham city council for some time. My hon. Friend mentioned the proposal prepared by the city council and Network Rail for the Birmingham gateway scheme, which has received wide publicity.
	The gateway proposal involves the provision of enhanced passenger capacity to alleviate overcrowding and facilitate long-term growth in business. There would be a much larger circulation and concourse area, with enhanced access to platforms, improved lighting and passenger facilities in general, and better access to the city centre. An integrated shopping centre would be provided, along with the opportunity for commercial development to offset overall costs.
	However, all that comes at a high cost. The present figures show a need for 380 million of public funding. Of that amount, 280 million is requested from the Department for Transport, with the balance coming from the Department of Trade and Industry. An expected contribution of 140 million from the private sector would help towards the all-up cost of 520 million.
	Although I commend the promoters for the hard work that has enabled the scheme to be designed, it represents a substantial sum and I am sure that the House would agree that we must make certain that it is the best-value way forward. Departmental officials are working hard to examine the business case presented by the city council and Network Rail that is designed to support the requirement for public funding. For example, the Department is in dialogue with the city council about the commercial risk associated with the project. The Government are not, and certainly do not want to become, the last resort for any cost overrun; nor do they want to pick up the pieces over any failed deal with the private sector.
	The gateway proposals are also being considered alongside the Department's current work on what is called the high-level output specification for rail, which will confirm what the Government want railways to deliver in the period from April 2009 to March 2014. An announcement, in the form of a White Paper, is likely to be made next summer.
	Simply put, any scheme for New Street must be affordable. Given the significance of the gateway scheme, and its impact on the railway and on available resources, it is likely that a way forward on options for the project will be included in the statement on the high-level output specification. I hope that that answers the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston asked about the timetable for an announcement.

Khalid Mahmood: My hon. Friend the Minister has spoken about the projected cost, but I remind him that the costs of the Manchester metro are far higher. However, the shopping complex that would be placed over New Street station would provide many jobs; thus the scheme would be of far greater benefit to UK taxpayers. By integrating the project with the private sector and not relying only on the public sector, we can ensure that we get a return on the project. I accept that my hon. Friend has concerns about the private sector, but I assure him that we have gone into all those matters. As happened with the neighbouring Bullring project, improving New Street station would provide great employment and high returns locally.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but I hope that he will forgive me if I am not tempted to compare the New Street project with important transport projects elsewhere in the country. All such projects have business cost-benefit ratios attached, and some are better than others, but we should concentrate on Birmingham in this debate.
	The Department is urging Birmingham city council and Network Rail to finalise work on the business case. Further information is being provided and I urge the promoters to deliver it as quickly as possible. I understand that the earliest that the promoters consider work can begin on the gateway scheme is December 2008.
	The Department is concerned that in any project to improve New Street station, disruption to passengers should be minimised. The Government want a plan to ensure that during the building work train services still operate and passengers can go about their business with the least adverse impact on their travelling requirements. Some action is needed beforehand, in particular to help passengers changing trains.
	My hon. Friends will be aware that the Department is currently re-tendering a number of passenger franchises that serve New Street. All of them are designed to improve reliability, provide additional capacity and meet stakeholder aspirations. In the invitation to tender for the new cross-country timetable, for example, the Department acknowledges the challenges that New Street station may present for many rail users. The public information document on the franchise states that
	for many journeys, where a change is necessary, there are alternatives such as Wolverhampton, which has seen recent investment in new waiting areas, lifts, a footbridge and customer information systems. Other alternatives include Banbury  Cheltenham Spa stations, where the operational layout dictates that only 'same platform' changes are necessary...Bidders
	for the new franchise
	are required to demonstrate in their bids how they intend to expand upon traditional customer service practices to ensure that the need to change trains does not become an inconvenience.
	The services for the new cross-country franchise have, in any case, been designed to remove conflicting train movements at New Street, thus producing a more robust timetable and improving reliability. In the case of the west midlands franchise, there are, for example, planned increases in services for the Birmingham-Coventry-Northampton corridor. I am pleased that the West Midlands passenger transport executive, Advantage West Midlands and other key local stakeholders are also involved in work to come up with the right solution for New Street. We need to secure the right long-term answer. Such bodies have important duties and responsibilities for the area, and they bring their expertise to the table. The Government look forward to the continuation of what I hope will be a team effort.
	As my hon. Friends will have noted, the Government fully understand the situation at Birmingham New Street and are working with the city council and Network Rail to find a sensible and affordable solution. No decisions have yet been made; before we reach that stage, a considerable amount of work remains to be undertaken. However, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friends, their constituents and rail passengers who use Birmingham New Street that we will ensure that the railway and New Street station are indeed fit for purpose.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eight o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

Northern Ireland

That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 9(th) October, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 227.

Question accordingly agreed to.

voluntary reduction (modulation) of direct farm support payments

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10014/06, Draft Council Regulation laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No.1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and amending Regulation (EC) No. 1290/2005; and welcomes the voluntary modulation proposal as a means of providing additional funding for rural development programmes in the United Kingdom which will help meet the government's commitment to sustainable rural development; but supports the government in wanting to ensure that the voluntary modulation rules operate in a way appropriate to the needs of the United Kingdom.
	 The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 226.

Question accordingly agreed to.